Equality Ruins Sex

Well, apparently not feminists, because the latest slew of research is sure to give them a crusty old vagina hemorrhage.

Using the internet, neuroscientists Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam analysed half a billion sexual fantasies, preferences and practices, then correlated their findings with animal behaviour studies and the latest findings in neuroscience, to come to the very non-PC conclusion that when it comes to sex, women are wired to find sexual submission arousing.

When women make as much or more money than men, when they have equally prestigious jobs and an army of assistants, they will find that the pool of sexually desirable men dries up, and the inevitably lowered status men who are available to them are perceived as veritably castrated. Male dating inequality results, where more and more men are deemed unworthy mate prospects while the few men who still wield high status over the majority of women find their prospects enlarged.

A choice quote by a classic lawyercunt from the above article:

Corporate lawyer Amy, 38, goes to work in killer heels and a pencil skirt, commands a mega-salary and has a team of assistants at her beck and call.

‘At work, I’m always the one in control and I admit that I like it that way. It’s exciting and it’s sexy being an Alpha woman,’ she says.

But when it comes to her partner Max, who is also a lawyer, albeit with a less high-profile job, she often finds herself feeling confused about who calls the shots — especially when it comes to sex.

‘When I get home, I no longer want to be the power broker, the one who’s always in charge and in control. I need to be wooed and seduced, and to feel that Max has power over me,’ she says.

‘Sometimes he fulfils the role, but sometimes he doesn’t and I feel disappointed. It does make me wonder why I’m reluctant to take the initiative in bed when I’m confident and in charge at work.’

Women are hardwired to prefer submission to a strong man, and the stronger the man, the more abject her surrender. See: Story of O. Women BEG for you to exert your power over them. A woman craves it like you crave stuffing her holes full of love.

Luckily for men in this epoch of economic contraction and anti-male bigotry, game will allow them to bypass the female algorithm to screen for high status men by giving women the SUBMISSION TO POWER that they so desperately need without men having to rely on any societally conventional status metrics. And women will love them for it.

For the haters and doubters who latch onto the whiny cry Fake! every time this rule of game is rubbed in their faces, ask yourself a simple question. Would Amy, the corporate lawyercunt in the story, feel

a. more turned on, or

b. just as turned off as before

if her lower rung lawyer lover started gaming her using the principles espoused on sites like this one?

Rhetorical. We all know the answer to that. She would love every last second of it, and her nag-to-blowjob ratio would quickly reverse.

Feminism, to put it as bluntly as these two do, is bad for sex, and is the prime reason why increasing numbers of women are seeking help for problems associated with low libido.

Ironically, while feminism has opened the pussy floodgates for alpha males, enabling them to have their fill of noncommittal sex, the uptight little ideology has simultaneously ruined the libidos of women by, in turns, masculinizing women and emasculating men. You just can’t fuck with the primal forces of nature and expect no blowback.

According to Ogas and Gaddam, we can learn some important lessons about female sexual behaviour from observing rats in the laboratory.

They insist that if you put a male and female rat in close proximity to one another, the female will start to come on to the male, performing actions associated with sexual interest — running and then stopping to encourage the male to chase her.

But after a bit of kiss-chase, the female rat stands still, adopting a submissive stance until the male takes action. They also claim that almost every quality of dominant males — from the way they smell to the way they walk and their deep voice — triggers arousal in the female brain, while ‘weaker’ men, who are not taller, have higher voices or lower incomes, excite us less.

What they seem to be suggesting is that the cavemen were right all along and that what women really want is to be dragged by the hair, all the while feigning reluctance, by macho men waving clubs.

Maxim #2: All successful seductions are adversarial in nature.

Even female rats exhibit the same tendencies that human females do: the love of being chased, the anticipatory flirting, the insufferable but charming coyness, the anti-slut defensive posturing, the desire to submit to a dominant male, with ass perched high in the air, undulating in expectation.

When I put this proposition to my friend Katie, 42, who runs a successful event planning business and is married to Geoff (who gave up a job with the police force that he hated and is doing a stint as house-husband, looking after their sons, aged three and six), she blushed with embarrassment.

‘It seems so disloyal to admit this because Geoff is so lovely in every way. He’s brilliant with the children, he does all the shopping and cooking, but the truth is I’m just not turned on any more,’ she says.

‘He knows how tired I am at the end of the day, and though he’s just being considerate, instead of asking me if I’m in the mood for sex, I long for him to be a bit masterful and say: “I want you. And I want you now.”

‘On the few occasions when we do make love, the only way I can get excited is by having a lurid fantasy about being taken by force by a man in uniform.’

I think we can declare, with this vaj-smash CH post, that on the date of 18-8-2011, feminism died. May the gruesome corpse shortly rot into spinsterly decrepitude and spare us all the spectacle of watching me do the Snoopy happy dance and gloating “I told you so!”

This post was awesome, so succintly informative. Sure some may say I’m nuts, but there are some hot high-T girls I really like – military has a lot. You just need to stay higher t and be more dominant, and you can’t go wrong.

Interesting. I’ve always wondered about that. Do you think the tall, hot high school jock who failed to establish a successful career is the equivalent of the high school cheerleader who dropped 3 kids and gained 50 pounds?

Are late bloomers who stay ambitious in life and learn to game similar to the plain looking girls that become gorgeous 1-2+ years after high school, rising above the bitchy hot girls who ruled their class and lost everything after learning too many dicks does not attractive make?

An interesting correllary to this, and one I’ve long maintained, is that the best accessory to game is high levels of testosterone. High T lelevs naturally make males adopt the aggressive sexually demanding attitude and behaviors, and secondary physical masculine traits, that make women swoon.

In fact, a good portion of game is nothing but the attempted mimicry of high T levels.

The heavy weights, red meat, and a full 8 hours sleep; the bestbiological receipe for solid inner game…. There is of course the physchological and philosophical components as well.. But that’s another story.

Yep. When you’re lifting hard, eating right, sleeping deep, your sack is tingling at the sight of even an ugly girl’s decent rack and you’re ready to fuck a hole in a tree, then you are a happy man and the bitches can smell it.

I’ve always been a hard partier and have laid plenty of women and had hot sex over the years. However recently in my ambitious crusade to skyrocket my game even further I quit drinking and all drugs. Been clean for 40 days now. I eat right, excercise 4 days a week and take shit loads of vitamins and sexual supliments (L-Arginine, Horney Goat Weed…tons of others).

Point is I’m a locked and loaded and blowing my ball snot in and on every slut that crosses my path, and the chics out there can smell it. High-T for sure. Pheromones peeking, exhibiting dominance during opening, comfort and seduction more rapidly then before.

Good for you dude – no sarcasm. That’s something to be proud of, and there is no shame in sharing of your success. What better place than a mens forum on being successful with girls to get positive feedback. Job well done.

The common refrain I hear from women, particularly black women, is “there are no men on my level.” When I ask why they can’t date a blue collar guy, they usually spew out a whole bunch of non-sensical explanations. “There are all of these successful women out here and not enough successful men for all of them.”

Well, given the obesity rate, there aren’t enough cute chicks to go around, either. But they don’t want to hear that. In another 10 years, I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of alpha males outnumbered the amount of cute, slender babes.

When i was a beta extraordinaire a few years ago, i heard something along those lines. Girls were sometimes telling me that they wanted a “real man”, a “confident man” and i was so dumb that i thought they were talking about someone like me, just maybe a little bit different, like a soul mate or something.
I was interpreting these rare glimpses of truth through the prism of political correctness and the mainstream emasculating culture. I didn’t stand a chance in figuring things out on my own.
I’m grateful i learned about game and i found this blog at a young age. Because I was heading towards a dark, dark place.

The upside is masculine men (if you can grow facial hair, you should) can rail these career chicks on the cheap. Career chicks are regularly paying for our dates, and I know a few other guys who live off of their women. A man who wants a free activity/vacation just says, “I don’t want to waste my money on that.” As she cannot imagine going without her masculine male escort, she pays.

Ugh, sorry, can only speak for myself and the other women i know, but do NOT grow facial hair! It looks like you’re just too fucking lazy to shave, and/or going for some ridiculous hipster look. And it chafes like mad! Faces, inner thighs, etc. Not a good look, at least in my opinion. Not manly. but ape-ly.

[Heartiste: I’ve been informed that while three day old stubble looks sexy, it hurts sensitive soft cheeks like hell when kissing and canoodling. You might say facial hair follows the same cad/dad pattern we see in the wild — inspires feelings of lust but when the reality hits it’s back to the safe confines of smooth shaven betaface.]

When sexual submission is not reflected in the culture — female bosses, lawyertwats and women judges, heck, suffrage itself — the culture is permanently unstable. We have tried it their way for a hundred years. Experiment is over.

The epicenter of the quake was the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment. The further one gets away from that moment (before or after), the more the culture reverts to a sustainable form. We are unfortunate to have been born so close to the blast, but we are lucky that the reverberations are decreasing rather than increasing. It will take another 50-100 years for the repeal of the Nineteenth Amendment. Michele Bachmann is the last (small) chance for a female American president. Hillary Clinton was their best chance in 2008.

We forget just how primal the female need for submission is because we are surrounded by women who have been ruthlessly denatured since birth. Even so, the impulse cannot be completely eradicated by artificial, totalitarian means any more than the Soviets could eradicate dissent forever.

Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. — Horace

How relieved she finally is on her back, a strong hand binding her wrists above her head! No more burden, she can just be. She reverts to what she is, and she is that which is acted upon. Yes, she is the object. Objectified. That curse word. Man is the subject.

Man fucks wo-man.

Every cultural institution that does not proceed from this truth is a lie. Our sex is the most fundamental distinguishing characteristic of all. Even our language reflects this inescapable reality through gender. It is impossible to imagine the human apart from la différence.

Vive la différence, you tinkering, vivisecting, social engineers! You life’s losers, you resenters, you poisoners of the punch bowl! You philosophesses with weak-chinned daddies! What kind of world is this! You have insisted our sisters become everything but what their entire being is geared for, because you once personally dreamt of possessing a cock.

We will fuck our way back to inequality. It will be a while, and it won’t be pretty.

Just remember this, you sisters awakening out of your dogmatic slumber, slowly scrubbing out the last greasy traces of penis envy: you are demigoddesses.

You are the most beautiful creatures in the universe. You are the measure of all beauty. You know this. You cannot unknow this. Men are ugly, gruesome creatures. You really don’t want to be us, the cheaper of the two sexual commodities by a factor of billions to one (lifetime gamete production).

You are hothouse flowers. You are our most precious of all objects, we protect you with everything we have, to the very last, with our very bodies if we must. We kill and we die for you. We launch a thousand ships because your beauty makes us weep. You and the kids get the lifeboat, we drown like men. You are the mothers of our children, the vessels of our immortality. It’s not a bad place to be. We need some small, official recompense for sacrificing all that we are to keep you there. Is it really so important you get to vote for county commissioner in next month’s primary?

Forget what “game” has to say about pedestals. When the world is right-side-up again, you will be put back there. Let’s work to get you back there. But so long as your sex insists on grubbing around with us men squabbling and clawing and slopping below, you will never be “treated like the princesses” you truly are. You will be made examples so that the women after you might once again be allowed to act like women.

That’s seriously “Beta” loser behavior now. F*ck da wimmen and children, kill/die for no one, save your ass before anyone else– being a selfish bastard is “Alpha” because it shows a strong personality women can persuade to be more generous by sex, until she finds an even bigger piece of crap who’ll (maybe this time) be persuaded by hot anal without a rubber.

King A is on the side of hope. Many of us here have embraced cynicism. Feminism lead to evo psych-based game. Women are exposed as the ruthless animals that they are. It’s way too late for the talk about princesses and chivalry.

Agree that it is way too late for princesses and chivalry. However, the way forward is murky. Game will certainly part of our future. I am not sure how it will all play out, though. However, it is not unreasonable to believe (believe, not hope) that there will be some “hope” in our future, albeit not the kind that King A is writing about. Perhaps some other hope that can exist in a world where ruthless animals turn on a spit. Not trying to be a wise-ass, just wondering what lies ahead.

Forget what “game” has to say about pedestals. When the world is right-side-up again, you will be put back there… But so long as your sex insists on grubbing around with us men squabbling and clawing and slopping below, you will never be “treated like the princesses” you truly are. You will be made examples…

Huh?

You don’t understand female nature if your view of righteous conduct is based on social standards, shaming, and right conduct.

Women are base, no matter how they act, and no matter what they do.

The ALWAYS need to be mate guarded.

You also seem to grossly underestimate how much society is influence by non-social causes, such as the pill, the post-industrial economy, and anonymous urban living. It barely matters what social attitudes we adopt. It barely matters what social incentives we provide females. No pedestal and no shaming is enough incentive to counterbalance 15 minutes of alpha and a high paying job.

Agreed, xsplat. However, we live in a non linear world. A pedestal and shaming will surely not counterbalance 15 minutes of alpha and a high paying job. But perhaps something else will? I dont know what that something could be, but I am not sure that such a something doesnt/couldnt exist.

You’re knee deep in the muddy trenches of the sexual stalemate. I’m looking at the battlefield from 10,000 feet. For thousands upon thousands of years civilization was nothing like the way it is presently and unstably constituted. It will revert to form as it must: human nature has not changed any more than we have grown wings over the last several millennia.

Women are base. That’s why we have always needed social containment fields, why we still need them, why we will always need them.

I realize my optimism is controversial on this forum because you’re all about discerning the best way to loot the post-apocalyptic ruins. I am about reconstruction. Granted, it’s hard to fathom peace while the bombs are still bursting inches from our faces. But it’s Why We Fight.

I agree with King A that women are base, and we will always need social containment fields. OTOH, I also agree with xsplat that humans have castes divided chiefly by sexual strategy, including those who use a bohemian strategy.

Are these two views mutually inconsistent? History suggests otherwise. The record shows that civilization, for several millennia, produced social containment fields within which most males lived, and within which most females pretended to live. OTOH, those following a libertine strategy quietly got nookie on the side, while keeping the betas in the dark. This is not my interpretation – this is the evidence of the genetic record embedded into the genes every one of us carries on this planet.

So, after a fashion, these two views can co-exist, at least as far as appearances go. And if such has been our past, perhaps our future may not be all that different in principle – no going back to the old days, of course – but in the form of a different mix which would give the betas a stake in society, by some form of containment for women (e.g. the male pill, perhaps?) while still leaving room for the libertine/slut strategy in some measure (we cannot change our genetics at that deep a level perhaps).

Not pretending to have any final answers myself – just throwing this thought out there if someone should choose to comment.

I wouldn’t have a problem if King A were only against casual or premarital sex. But this dude wouldn’t want a culture where young women MARRIED the older producers and leaders. He’s into hating legal age difference relationships no matter what.

I’m saying that civilizations fall apart when that happens. The producers, often men in their forties, fifties and sixties, need to have a reason for working hard and they don’t need bizarre mangina betas trying to ruin their social lives by acting like the stability of the civilization depends on them not being able to marry the hottest girl in town (such as the betas preaching to the hottest girl in town that she should marry a certain non-producer her own age who thinks he might want to go to medical school some day).

That’s not really social conservatism. The Bible is filled with 600 year old men marrying young women.

He’s got the modern mangina disease, demanded by older women who never before had so much power in former civilizations, whereby age difference relationships in marriage-minded relationships are considered just as evil and “libertine” as casual sex relationships between same age partners.

He compares a hetero man dating an 18 year old female with being a member of NAMBLA (the man boy love association). And today’s castrated American male evangelists actually think homosexuality is more acceptable (less criminal) than a man dating a 17 year old female.

Bring back the days when American evangelists actually thought homosexuality was worse than a heterosexual man dating a 17 year old female.

I’m saying that King A’s kind is not anywhere near what a traditional Christian male was ever like. He’s a mouthpiece for the interests of older women now. And it doesn’t help his credibility when older women cheer him on.

Feigning Beta Provider is a good post, I’m sure his ideas would work with me (I’m mid/late twenties). However, your advece – talk about high moral principles and integrity – probably wouldn’t work. It’s really difficult/impossible to FAKE integrity and moral principles when you have none.

A smart man can fake everything. You underestimate the ability of a borderline sociopath to tell you what you want to hear. And many recovered betas are so appalled by the true female nature that they become just that: borderline sociopaths.

The problem is that while all of this applies in the sexual realm, it remains a fantasy.

Are men, even super alpha men, physically invincible and able to protect a woman from all harm? Do they always know everything? Are they really superior in every way to every other man and woman? No, clearly not. We are all human and weak and fallible in various ways, but in order for female libido to work, she must have the fantasy that he is all alpha. That’s why Game works, because it gives her the fuel for the fantasy that she’s with an alpha.

But reality is different. Many women can function effectively in careers and are, in fact, capable of taking care of themselves and their offspring without a man (it’s not optimal and many do a crappy job, but it’s a survival advantage for women to be able to do so in case the man was killed in battle, etc). What has changed is the illusion and fantasy surrounding What Is A Man and What Is A Woman, and this is what kills desire.

It’s really hot to imagine that there is some eternal spiritual essence of Man and Woman, but it’s not so clear cut and that’s where reality collides with what’s sexually attractive. Men and women are clearly different, but the degree of difference is not big enough to sustain the fantasy that Game seeks to build once again. If women are even CAPABLE of being “masculinized” by feminism (and men beta-fied by it), it proves that we’re pretty malleable as a species despite the negative repercussions of some of this “openness” that liberals love to champion.

Many women want to be sexually submissive but do not prefer to be submissive in the rest of their lives. This is not easy to pull off especially if she wants to keep a dominant man around for a real relationship.

Hannah wrote: If women are even CAPABLE of being “masculinized” by feminism (and men beta-fied by it), it proves that we’re pretty malleable as a species despite the negative repercussions of some of this “openness” that liberals love to champion.

Women haven’t been masculinized by feminism, not by a long shot. See the blog post above. Mimicking is playing pretend, not an adjustment of essence. Put a dress on a transvestite: he still has a dick. Put shoulder-pads over your tits, you’re not fooling anyone into thinking you’re dominant. Yes, we are forced to pay obeisance to official pieties and salute the army colonel in a skirt. But her hole secretly weeps at dominance all the same.

Many women want to be sexually submissive but do not prefer to be submissive in the rest of their lives.

The solution to this has been for women to be openly submissive but passively influential through her submissiveness. “Behind every great man is a great woman.” Any other arrangement does not work. This truth is as difficult to abandon as carbs is for the morbidly obese. We have been force-fed a diet of feminism all of our lives, to the point of being unable to imagine the truly healthy food is even edible.

You are crypto-progressive. The illusion of progress is that, once achieved, certain standards can never be turned back, like, say, once the Laws of Gravity are discerned, they can never be repealed. Not true in the social and political realm: http://tinyurl.com/yhc6uuh

You have been taught that being dominated by men is a prison. The majority of men you know are beta saps not worthy of dominating you, and you extrapolate that into categorical political imperatives.

Why do men not universally hold open doors for you anymore? Why do they fail to give you their seat? Why do they not pay for your dinner date? Because those were expectations under the old arrangement that still survive in some form past the revolution. When you say, dominate me in bed but nowhere else, that too is the equivalent of asking for chivalry for nothing compensatory in return.

I don’t blame you. I wouldn’t want to see any woman acquiesce to an unworthy shadow of a “man.” But here is the answer to the chicken or the egg: the female withdrawal of acquiescence created the unworthiness in men, and the cafeteria-choosiness about which particular parts of your life you will submit sustains the preponderance of betas in your life. You are the first to signal your rejection of the deal, so manboys adjust themselves accordingly, hoping you will not reject the kinder, less demanding version.

Submission is an all or nothing arrangement. Deep down in your uterine cavity you understand this, and so it only emerges when your defenses are stripped away, such as during the total abandonment of orgasm. Then, when you sober up, you pretend to intellectually catalogue your desires again and begin striking clauses in the submission contract, as if you have the first clue what you truly desire or what’s good for you.

And wtf are you talking about essences?
“It’s really hot to imagine that there is some eternal spiritual essence of Man and Woman”

her boobs raised the spirit in me?

“Men and women are clearly different, but the degree of difference is not big enough to sustain the fantasy that Game seeks to build once again. ”

The problem of “degree” is a problem for women. Feminism which hails androgyny as the ideal deliberately tries to remove this. That doesn’t prevent the boner being raised for the difference in kind that men see when viewing women.

“Many women can function effectively in careers and are, in fact, capable of taking care of themselves and their offspring without a man”

I understand that there is nothing to be gained by the eradication of feminism for alpha-mimics who make their playground among the chaos. They thrive in the instability, they have reason to claim instability is permanent and unchanging. I understand why they fear the day when the BSDs descend upon their sexual sewer to restore order and announce the party is over.

You are not fighting, you are daydreaming out loud.

You can’t motivate people to follow your social agenda. You don’t have an arial view at all – you have a worms eye view.

You are clueless about how motivation works in humans, and that humans have a variety of castes – castes divided chiefly by sexual strategy.

You represent the agenda of the socialist beta male. Not all men are born with the predispositions which allow for such an attitude.

Those of us who have a more bohemian and libertine attitude will never, NEVER be moved by your words.

Even a gun to our heads would only provoke us to fight you.

You can’t win this social war you are trying to wage.

Ever.

I am not seeking the approval of “bohemian[s] and libertine[s],” I have no illusion that you will “be moved by [the] words” in the last couple paragraphs when I was specifically addressing women. What did you think of the first part?

There has to be incentive for women (and their beta allies) to give up their insane attempt to overturn nature. Those girls who are here lurking among the commentary are asking, by virtue of their presence, for a cease fire. I am interested in a cease fire. Roisy has taught you to think that anyone who desires peace is someone not prepared for the fight, the beta roadkill on the sexual superhighway, losers suing for slavish surrender. I can only tell you that such is not the case. The Cincinnatus syndrome appears inexplicable on the surface, so I can understand your skepticism.

You are right, “Not all men are born with the predispositions which allow for such an attitude.” Their animal condition must be gentled, as it always had to be in every civilization in history. Indeed, that is a primary function of civilization: to reduce or channel manly instinct so we can live five seconds with each other without killing everything.

There is no expectation to tame the middle-aged beast raised in an era of chaos — that ship has sailed. So you will never have the ears to hear nor the mind to imagine that deference is not the sign of weakness. Sometimes strength defers voluntarily. Some men have nothing to prove.

That is why I won’t persist with an undemonstrable claim on this medium that I am doing just fine among the chaos. You can extrapolate from my demeanor and imagine my status for yourself. That’s the best I can do for you, since part of your criticism depends on imagining my real-world credibility. Suffice it to say: I am no victim of this climate.

But there are no more worlds to conquer. There are only lies to be annihilated. I take my cue from the ancients who possessed enough virtue to be magnanimous toward the weak — and specifically the weaker sex. I want women to thrive as I have. I want them to return to their nature. I want them to be at peace rather than the constant state of inner turmoil and anxiety exploited in equal measure by feminists and PUAs alike.

You are correct. That makes us enemies ultimately. But there is a long way to go before the demise of our mutual nemesis feminism invalidates a temporary alliance. Until then, brother, “begin the battery once again.” Take down as many bitches as you id commands. I am on a war-footing, and although the ends remain the same, I have done such things that I wouldn’t contemplate in peace, things you’d be familiar with and would approve of.

I will not leave the half-achieved feminism
Till in her ashes she lie buried.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the flesh’d soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh-fair virgins and your flowering infants.
What is it then to me, if impious war,
Array’d in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do, with his smirch’d complexion, all fell feats
Enlink’d to waste and desolation?
What is’t to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
[W]hy, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dash’d to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds….

And when I said nerds, I was thinking of actual scientific nerds, or the scholarly kind. I didn’t notice the second half of your last sentence lol. I speed read sometimes but at times I go too fast😛 So nevermind….

As with economics and politics in general, some people(feminists) are not swayed by observable reality,but their own emotions. What ‘feels right’ is fact. That doesn’t change reality though. Women still want a man who ravishes them on the kitchen island. Which is what Geoff should be doing.
With scotch and a cigar in hand.

Makes sense. I agree that it is a life strategy that won’t go away, and I’ll take that another step and say that it never went away; it’s always been with us. It just wasn’t quite as obvious before the pill.

But women have always sought power, and if you look carefully at most cultures, you’ll find they are actually matriarchal, not patriarchal. India, for example.

True. Friend of mine is married to an Indonesian woman. Some SWPL Asian-studies prof told him at a party that Western men like Asian women because they’re submissive. He said, “I can see you’ve never set foot in Indonesia, because I have, and what I saw was one hundred million pussy-whipped motherfuckers.”

Here is another gem from the article:
“This is a view echoed by Phillip Hodson: ‘There is no reason why each of you can’t be sometimes dominant, sometimes neutral, sometimes submissive. What makes for successful long-term sexual relationships is that you can surprise and delight one another.’”

So you just need to overcome your brain wiring and choose what turns you on. Case closed.

A non-negligable minority of men are wired to (at least sometimes) enjoy being sexually submissive.

From my experience the vast majority of women are wired to (at least sometimes) enjoy being sexually dominant.

Even a very dominant male can sometimes be a switch. You’d be surprised to learn that showing receptive underbelly is not only beneficial when using beta provider traits to cement LTR bonds.

Getting a blowjob, for instance, is a receptive stance for a man. Being on the bottom is at minimum not the dominant position. And of course the man can receive ass to mouth, and finger to ass, and other receptive pleasures.

And in case it must be repeated for those who are wary of their sexual orientation being plastic, your prostate is not homosexual. Inside your ass is the same erogenous zone that is called the G-spot in females.

there are many studies about many things only to be coontradicted by another study a year later and then 10 years later all those studies will be in trashbin of history. Beta boys and more importanty closet homosexual marry/date butch chicks for social acceptance which is not good news for thoose who like their buttfucked due to association. Most gay pornstars state that the bottom only get off 20%-30% of the times and there only a few minority who act the bottom part, cuz afterall it’s in the ass. Therefore, given the small number of buttfuck lovers among a small number of bottom withing a smal community of homosexuals, there number of hetero who like to get buttfucked prolly is in the same numbers of men who likes to fuck sheep.

Very interesting… I told my (female) friend about this just now. She’s a fairly “alpha” chick and didn’t like it much. But somehow, by teasing her with this article and telling her how submissive she is to me, she wanted to get it on.

An alpha woman is a beautiful one. A chick with average looks and a leading personnality can be classified as “type A” or hyperactive, not alpha, because she has no ‘intimate’ power over men compared to a stunning beauty with big tits.
Just sayin.

Have you ever tried an air gun? You can use them in your house without going through walls. If you substitute the plastic slugs with metal ones they will break the skin. I had one lying around for six months from an estate sale I bought out, and only loaded the thing last week. It was surprisingly cool.

Although the plastic pelets aren’t lethal, you wouldn’t want to shoot yourself with the thing. Even a richochet shot will leave a welt. The point of mentioning it though wasn’t that air guns are badass, but that females view them as badass.

To a female, it’s loud and scary. Pretty well the same as a conventional gun

You’re not suppose to picture it. lol!!! That’s not the point. Don’t let my bubbles hee! hee! fool ya! hahahah!! These guys have NOOOOO idea about the secrets of the orient! hee! hee! DON’T ask…..for it could only be experienced! wooo…..

I tried the policeman thing twice . The first time I couldn’t stop laughing. It had the potential to be great but i fucked up.
The second time i knew better. I impersonated a cop, pretented that i had to search the house, fucked her against the wall, got out of the house and came back afterwards. I acted like if nothing happened, changed the subject when she tried to bring it up, and later at night, I punished her for ‘cheating’. She loved that shit.
It’s great stuff, but remember folks, no matter how good the sex is, if you’re not alpha enough, you’re in potential trouble. Psychological domination is way more important than sexual domination.

They had to do a study to figure this out? They could have just asked me. Last night the ladyfriend was screaming at the top of her lungs “dominant that p****y” as I pounded her doggy style, pulling her hair, and shoving her face into a pillow. Almost every woman I have ever been with enjoys getting smacked around in bed. I have found the few who haven’t were usually just sexually inexperienced or had only had boring sex with betas. The ones who have only had relations with betas are the most fun to start smacking around in bed. They turn into absolute cock whores after one or two go arounds.

Female cultural equality is the death of society. Societies are and were always founded upon male urges and drive. Once they get comfortable and the women gain “strength”, that society is on it’s way out.

This is a misogybistic post. (excuse my language I have a tuque on and just a tiny hole to speak oub of).

I am 5’2″, oberweight, and bald. I drink an extra large slurpee for breakfast ebery day. My partner and I live in a double wide and I am unemployed. I keep the place clean, even cleaning up the potato chips which I sometimes drop on the carpet. I told my wife about this post and she is an alpha female. She said no way, women want men who are kind, considerate and lobing. I took off her shoes for her when she came in the door and then I gabe her a massage. She fucked me right then and there. I neber neg her or tease her, and my pet name for her is, “honeypumpkin”. Women don’t want to be dominated; they want a man who connects with them emotionally and intuitively. Someone who will clean the dishes and do the cooking when she is at the office.

Texting/posting/email is an extremely poor subsitute for real time. Without facial clues & tonal inflections it is very hard to pick up subtle comments. Way over the top? Easier. Which is why posters generally use the /s tag to indicate sarcasm.

“When I get home, I no longer want to be the power broker, the one who’s always in charge and in control. I need to be wooed and seduced, and to feel that Max has power over me,’ she says.”

This is soo true. But what is sad is the fact that these women cannot openly share their real desires with the men in their lives. Why on earth would they not tell her husbands that is what they want?

I don’t know any successful career woman that wants to be in charge in the bedroom or with a man. She may not admit it but its true. All women desire the need to have a man that takes control (of course one she can trust to do this). Feminism made women feel guilty about admitting that while we may want to be successful we still want that feeling of submissiveness to a masculine male at home. Most women won’t admit this b/c its not PC in a feminist society.

I was reading a women’s mag article with Jessica Alba and I get so annoyed when women try to prove something. She said her proudest moment as a little girl when she was barely 6 was she saw herself on a home video saying “I am a woman and I don’t need a man for anything!!!”. I just SMH. Females always say silly stuff like that to seek other female approval but I know they are lying or just saying it to sound good.

The minute you mention submissive to a group of women these days, they give you the side eye and start preaching all that feminism baloney about how wrong it is for a woman to want to have a man that takes control in some areas.

Even masculine feminist women desire masculine men, but they can’t get them and so they end up with effeminate males whom they beat down and emasculate. These women are angry b/c they crave for masculine men to take up the power/control in other areas of their lives but instead find themselves having to be always in control in the workplace AND at home b/c their emasculated men can’t live up to a real masculine man. I have seen women like this and they are miserable and the poor effeminate men who are with them are miserable and afraid too. LOL.

So many women have been brainwashed that submissiveness in any area of their lives mean they are weak. A true masculine man can handle a submissive woman and still make her feel like she is not totally giving up her power to someone who is going to take advantage of that or abuse it.

Really, I think these distinctions of dominant vs. submissive are too binary.

They bleed into each other, in a symbiotic way – where would all the most dominant men in the world be by themselves? And when a relationship is symbiotic – in that both benefit – you can’t really say that one partner is totally dominant and all-powerful towards the other partner.

Knowing that your ‘submission’ to someone else is something they would do almost anything for….is a form of power in itself.

I don’t feel the need to assert any dominance in my interactions with men because I know that at root I hold the power anyways – men are the ones coming up with elaborate plans like working ‘Game’ to get me, and who’ll pay a lot of money (ha, even more than I think i’m worth – guess my ‘smv’ is objectively even higher than I’d rate it…. )
Sure, I have fun being thrown about in bed by guys who are bigger and stronger than me, and in playing along sometimes with their helpless little girl games- thats just funny to me, but good times. But doesn’t change that I know deep down, for a fact, that I’m not inherently inferior to any man. I’ve seen or heard absolutely nothing that would make me think so.

[Heartiste: Submission has little to do with jaded, PC-skewed terms like inferiority. And the dominance-submission axis is not black and white, either. But the chance for a happy fulfilled relationship (or sex life) will be better if the man is dominant more often than he is submissive, deferential or accommodating. Equality in loving relationships is a myth.]

How is inferiority PC-skewed? It has to relate to a specific dimension…

So yes, I am inferior in strength. In intelligence? How so?…. I’ve observed quite the opposite in general.

And yes, equality in every dimension is a myth in happy relationships. Its a give-and-take in different areas.

[Heartiste: Inferiority is an ivory tower status-whoring term loaded with baggage, and none of it apropos. Submission has nothing to do with intelligence. Some of the sexiest girls I have been with, girls who surrendered themselves to roaring orgasms when my grip tightened around their wrists or neck, or my hands jerked their heads back by the locks of their hair, were scintillatingly smart, hypereducated girls with sharp eyes that could pierce weaker men’s souls with a withering look. And they loved it, absolutely ADORED ME, when I gave them just a big enough helping of shit or demanded (not asked, not cajoled) of them favors and services they would cringe to do for anyone else.
It’s your moral crisis, not anyone else’s, if you insist on labeling a perfectly natural sexual and romantic desire as something inferior and demeaning, to be cleansed by penance of indignation.]

Don’t misunderstand. First, you are equal in dignity. Your life has equal worth to a man: infinite. You are not chattel. Once you begin making highly questionable judgments about relative inferiorities to determine the worth of human life, that always and everywhere ends with “To the gas chambers — go!”

Second, the issue isn’t about NAWALT. You are a brilliant example of female particularistic thought. Men think in abstractions, which is why we have delivered every intellectual achievement of any significance in the entire history of humanity. Women think in particularities. They understand the world through their immediate experience, a bottom-up vs. the masculine top-down. So it is no surprise that you seek to discredit man’s unimpeachably clear intellectual superiority by presenting your particular self as the black swan that disproves the deduction, “All swans are white.”

Like a girl, you are primarily focused on your immediate orbit. The post above was not about Hannah and her smarts. It was about generalities. This misunderstanding is the source of most male-female miscommunication.

“So yes, I am inferior in strength. In intelligence? How so?…. I’ve observed quite the opposite in general.”

You’ve observed the particular, not “in general.” You’ve observed your particular experiences. General observations include world-wide surveys and historical facts outside of Hannah’s orbit, such as those found in the link I provided and the research cited in the original post above.

This is the problem with women who are fixated on how “smart” they are. Anyone, man or woman, who announces his own virtue is suspect: demonstration is a better witness than self-testimony in every case (though in our self-esteem sodden culture, this truth continues to baffle us). More important, a woman who announces her own intellectual virtue is, at best, a dim echo of an equal-rightist with nothing to back up her emotional declarations: “I am woman, hear me roar” suitably tempered for the times and the audience.

You have retained the feminist’s atavistic need to prove yourself against the male standard. The dignity of your sex does not depend on showing yourself to be the equal in man’s intelligence any more than it depends on demonstrating yourself to be the equal in man’s strength, Professor Firefighter. And the dignity of Hannah in the particular does not depend on declaring your relative intellectual quality among the present assembled. Especially not on a site like this.

King A, you often bring up good points. That is, if I forget the occasional layer or white-knighting and sugar-coating as femmes go–fortunately, its occurrences are decreasing.

The thing is, if I’d read all your posts word-for-word, I’d have no time to fuck. Please, do yourself a favor (and by osmosis to us too) and ponder about the possibility of trimming your posts to a third, as a rule. I bet that you’ll get more reads.

Speaking of the knighting… you often tend to beat a dead horse in your diatribes. I know it’s tempting to look at all angles, but pick one of three.

(I can on occasion beat two dead horses, like above, since I do it rarely)

I appreciate the criticism. All casual writing could use some tightening up. But it takes longer for me to trim my stream of consciousness and edit it down to bite-size for your ADD consumption. Adderall is widely available, too, if it helps you.

So it really boils down to: whose time do I value more, Cadnerd’s or mine? (Take a wild guess.)

You’re too hard on King A. He’s one of my favorite commenters and i’m totally areligious. I always learn four or five new words in every contribution he makes, and his lyricism is purely delightful. He’s entitled to write as much as he can, come on, dude, give him a break.

JS you are so right. A woman that is confident within herself as a woman and knows her true power can understand and come to terms with male dominance or her desire for wanting to be dominated in certain areas of her life. Women who are truly insecure with being women and who feel inferioir to men or inferior in general will have issues with male dominance in any area of their lives- be it sex, relationships etc.

I also find women in high positions to often feel the need to over exert their dominance in masculine ways b/c they feel they can’t measure up to men or affect men any other way unless they do so. Really as you said the power lies in being a feminine woman and not trying to be masculine and on the level of men. You didn’t say that exactly but that is what I got in some parts of your post.

Knowing that your ‘submission’ to someone else is something they would do almost anything for….is a form of power in itself.

On the other hand, J.S. Mills, you are absolutely correct about the equality of female power. But women and their beta-male enablers were not satisfied with wielding their power indirectly and passively. With their female intellect they intuited the only power is direct, manly power, and in grasping at our birthright, lost their network of influence altogether.

And I’m just realizing I mixed you up with another female commenter, Hannah. The skirts and perfumes eventually all blur together into a vague memory of sweetness. I told you men think in abstractions.

I definately agree that women love to be dominated. They want to be taken forcefully and for men to use their bodies. I don’t know how many women I’ve been with that made remarks such as “pound me as hard as you can” or “punish me with your cock” One woman I see regularly always brings up the first time we were together and how I forcefully held her arms down while fucking her.

Another thing to consider is that the pussy will get wet when the woman is frightened. Best to be a bit intimidating.

Cat you are right. Most women will not admit this. I will never forget the first b/f who became aggressive with me in bed. I knew I liked it but I didn’t know if I should have liked it. lol He slapped me (not very hard but enough to make me take notice) and then slightly gripped my neck and then pulled on my hair. LOL. This guy was SKINNY and short. I really wanted to share this with my friends at the time and ask them how they felt about stuff like that b/c I wasn’t sure if that was a sign of him being disrespectful to me – although he would have given me the world and never treated me unkindly. But people would always ask me wth i was going out with him for b/c I was “out of his league” and then I guess they figured he must have been doing something right b/c I loved me some him!

Women who admit stuff like this are often seen as having issues for some reason – so they just keep it between their guy and themselves. *shrugs*

Yeah…I feel like one piece of this is the fact that it feels like his raw desire for us is so powerful that it overwhelms all social norms. It’s not just about *his* power (although that’s part of it, for sure)…it’s the fact that I as a woman inspire this kind of physical craziness in him, which is pure confirmation of my sexiness and desirability. Which is a HUGE turn on.

E.g…I remember once I made out with a guy (before running away home and leaving him at the club…ha) and he actually bit my lip HARD while kissing…I had a bright purple bruise on my lip for several days. On one hand, I was really embarrassed for people around me to see it, …but on another, deeper level I was actually proud. Like…”Yeah, THIS is how bad he wanted me.” Weird, but true. Of course I didn’t admit it to myself or anyone else at the time…but it’s clear in retrospect.

LOL at the lip thing! Yes Crump, I htink you are right – the fact is when they become that excited we feel it must be us bringing it out in them?

I have never quite figured out the physchological reasons we women love being dominated in bed but ashamed to own up to it. I guess for me the fact this guy was NOT my type AT ALL (he was short and skinny but had a cute boyish face) but damn he had a lot of confidence and persistence. i was even prepared for bad sex with him b/c he was so small and short. Oh boy was i in for the surprise of my life. I honestly have to say before we had sex I only went out with him b/c of his tenacity. although i liked him and I never really too him seriously even though i was dating him. But after he took control in bed, that set the tone for the relationship and people just couldn’t understand what the hell I saw in him. LOL

Hmmm. Well, I liked it because it was ego-validating, but felt “safe”…I could turn guys on by dancing with them and making out but then go home and feel like I hadn’t jeopardized any part of myself (whether I had or hadn’t is another question…but I’m just stating how I felt at the time). It was definitely a power trip…just like I mention in my post above. Turning guys on is a huge exercise in power for women…and then we immediately abdicate all that power by having sex with the aforementioned guys. So to stop it at the first stage…turning someone on and then running away, was a big rush.

Also, for social and religious reasons at that time, I was heavily invested in protecting my virginity , which put a major damper on the idea of taking any of these guys home, no matter HOW good their “game” was. It just wasn’t going to happen at that point. The moral obstacles were way too big. So that’s one piece of it, also. Instead, I got my kicks from playing cocktease. (I enjoyed the kissing/dancing, too.)

Funny you should ask about SMV…reading this blog has made me very curious about that. So today I asked a male friend (who is pretty alpha…hot, works in NY finance, mid-30s, well-educated, dates a LOT) and told him to be excruciatingly honest with me. He said that for Latino/black guys I would be an 8.5 or 9…but that for Caucasian guys my SMV might be lower because I’m on the curvy side…so probably closer to a 7 for a white guy, depending on the guy. So there you have it. I’m sure everyone on here will immediately deduct 4 from that (as per Heartiste), but that’s what he (my friend) said.

Man should be educated for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior; all else is folly… Let woman be a plaything… The happiness of man is: I will. The happiness of woman is: he wills… You are going to woman? Do not forget the whip!

I’ve always postulated that women having financial parity with men instead of fair is the the biggest reason for the uneven sexual market. When most every man had a financial power advantage to women it equalized women’s natural given pussy power. and there was fairness. Now everything is titled to women’s advantage. And that is against the natural order of how things should be and ruins society for everyone.

Try to explain to women the math that if women tend to date up (which they will agree), and if women earn the same as men (which they will agree that they want) that this means that a good portion of men won’t be date-upable, and so will lose out.

I noticed that a good decade ago, but no female has ever understood the simple math.

I would highly recommend the book “A Billion Wicked Thoughts,” by the same authors. It’s a very interesting book on human sexuality and desire. AND…it makes mention of this blog and the author formerly known as Roissy

The western states started it because the ranchers wanted to outnumber the cowboys in votes apparently because of differing views on land use, but the effect was that married men wanted to outnumber the single men in votes (the amendment effectively said each married man gets two votes while each single man gets one).

That dynamic started to snowball downhill.

Then the mangina evangelical males east of the Mississippi saw a way to denounce the alpha lifestyles of single males by getting their beta votes doubled via their wives.

The freedoms of single males have been in dire jeopardy ever since.

Some here think the USA is in some kind of out of control sexual revolution now, but there are tons of things you can’t do now in much of the USA that you could 110 years ago (before the Women’s Temperance Union and WKKK started to criminalize male behavior).

It shouldn’t have to be spelled out all the time:

Solicitation criminalized
Sex with 17 year olds criminalized for heterosexual men but encouraged for cougars and homosexuals
Sex with your secretary or intern or age of consent student criminalized
Sex outside of your marriage severely punished with financial destruction
Political correctness heavily enforced

Remove the women’s vote and we won’t be putting any women back on pedestals in payment. Their 18 year old daughters might cause us to launch 10 ships on loan for a year. The women’s vote hemmed men in.

The religious guys are propped up by the older women. Witness Crumpetess fawning all over King A. Take away the women’s vote and most of the problems I listed above will be solved. The religious male’s electoral power would be cut in half.

While many women’s group initiatives only compel women to a life of solitude with cats, overall the votes of older females to regulate men (plus their current control over corporate media) are actually serving their interest not to be ignored or abandoned.

Don’t blame women for feminism and its alliance with evangelism to regulate men. Blame their enablers.

The state is the substitute for men. First it substitutes for daddy, then it substitutes for hubby.

Take away women’s vote and not only does “the religious male’s electoral power” increase as a percentage of the remaining electorate, but it increases in quality too. Without women voting, where does the massive constituency sustaining the paternalistic state come from? SWPL beta males? In the absence of a paternalistic state, where will the women flee except toward genuine paternity? They seek refuge with men who promise them protection. What type of man is a committed protector? “The religious male.”

Did women’s suffrage coincide with the rise of religion or the decline of religion?

Look, I understand it is in your interest to stoke the chaos and dismiss any possibility of restored social order as myth. I can see why you imagine mine are the cryptic desires of a beta male who is the biggest loser in the jungle. But your inadvertent advocacy for the jungle is not only laughably unsupported, it is not sustainable for very long. The reason we have civility and rules and walls is because the constant war of all against all is exhausting for everyone involved, man and woman, alpha and beta. It’s good to be the big fish eating the smaller fish in your corner of the ocean. Until you become food for the even bigger shark — or the school of smaller sharks — who just moved in. We eat and we are eaten, unless we hammer out a social contract.

So you want the all-you-can-eat Alpha Buffet to go on forever. Here’s the secret: not only does the kitchen run out of food and the patrons start to riot, but the glutton eventually gets sick of the fare.

Our era is anomalous. You have zero understanding of what created and sustains feminism. Preposterously, you assert some sort of secret alliance between the men who proclaim, “Women, submit to your husbands as if to the Lord” and the flaming warpigs who screech, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” I realize religious men are not your preferred company, and so you categorize us along with every other thing you find distasteful, like feminism and hair on a woman’s sphincter and rainy Monday mornings. But you are a nearly complete ignoramus.

Alpha males are not vandals or looters, standing by while others fight the war so that they might pick over the corpses of the noble dead. Men are leaders and builders and protectors. Irreligious snots think they are the ultimate rebels who have discovered the secret to radical independence. But they have no earthly clue what created or sustained the civil confines in which they are permitted to brag about their self-actualized “power” and “freedom.” So we get a contrived history lesson about women’s suffrage that is as connected to reality as a Womyn’s Studies term paper written by a freshperson.

In a post-apocalyptic world, I can see religious men being rounded up by libertarian militias and sent to reeducation camps where they will be forced to be naked in a room full of horny teenage girls until they realize what God really built them for. Then, with the films in hand, the local militia leaders can let the newly reeducated men go live their lives in peace knowing that these guys will no longer be self righteous and in denial over their true nature.

Take away women’s vote and not only does “the religious male’s electoral power” increase as a percentage of the remaining electorate, but it increases in quality too. Without women voting, where does the massive constituency sustaining the paternalistic state come from?

This is an illogical paragraph. All intelligent men want the state to stop transferring wealth to females who haven’t earned it. Religious motivations have nothing to do with this.

Most men are thinking, correctly and at least in the back of their minds, that killing the Daddy State transfer of funds would make women more friendly to them as individual men, making it easier for the men to either get laid or get married. Again, there is no need to have any religious motivation to want either of these things.

Religious men would probably make up less than 20% of the male US electorate now. And they have been getting their social re-engineering laws passed only by allying with the left wing feminists and voting with their insecure anti-liberty wives (VAWA/IMBRA, the Protect Act, Age of Consent Laws, Anti-John Laws, etc).

The only reason why I don’t see religious men as more of a threat to men than feminists is because they’re currently mostly taking their marching orders from their wives who are friends with the left wing feminists.

Look at Bachmann’s friendship with Debbie Wasserman Slutz. Look at Palin’s friendship with the director of the LA chapter of the NOW. Can you imagine their husbands telling them to finally sit down and shut up?

I could write a book on the nexus of modern western “Christianity” with feminism and the constant serving of the female interest.

“The religious guys are propped up by the older women. Witness Crumpetess fawning all over King A.”

Hahaha. This just made my day. At 30, I’m an “older woman”? That’s just awesomely funny. How old are you…19?

30 might be old in raw SMV terms, I can see that. But in the context of discussion…if I’m an “older woman”…what does that make a 50-year-old woman? Or 70? If a 50-year-old weighs in on this forum…what is the term for her?

Hilarious.

My frank adoration of King A stems from the fact that he knows what he’s talking about and commands my respect. I definitely don’t like everything he has to say and find much of it very hard to hear (i.e. it challenges me in ways that are uncomfortable), but I love the way he says it.

If you’re 30 and have been sexually active, you’ve very likely had sex with a man over 45 who said he was 35 or something similar. Either way, you are condemning yourself to being alone or with a boring beta if you don’t adopt a policy of dating men who look and say they are 10-15 years older than you are.

Alphas and smart Beta Providers will not date their own age or anything close to it. Period. End of story.

Insulting Rick or any older man here won’t change the equation nor change the male taste for young women.

You must be well aware that the reason why Feminists and Christians want to criminalize men for paying for sex is because they don’t want guys like Rick, Xsplat, SilverFox, Dirk or I to score women younger than they are either via normal game or money.

Your best viewpoint is to let men go for what they want and to realistically adjust to it.

So again, I actually don’t rule out older men at all. I recently had an attractive 55-year-old guy express interest in me, and was quite tempted (I’ve been briefly involved with two men who were in their 50s in the past), but decided against it in the end. Mainly because I think the chances of a man in his 50s dying within the next 20 years and leaving me a young widow (and/or mother) just aren’t that appealing. So personally, my aversion to that kind of gap (20 years +) is more about statistics than about tastes.

And an 18-year-old woman’s opinion *would* be considered of consequence here? Hardly. Reading the comment board indicates over and over again that most of the male commenters perceive women as inconsequential, regardless of age or SMV.

Yes, we’ve recently seen some otherwise personable American women on this board confirm how they expect to be considered “young” in their thirties (it doesn’t matter how old the man is who defines this stuff because it’s objective) and how dating their own age is considered some kind of right, strong expectation or at least a “validation that they’re still attractive”. All this is unheard of in non-feminist societies.

I haven’t meant to insult any woman on this board because nothing I’ve said would miff anyone in a society where realism reigns.

In most languages (societies) the word “girl” is used to describe a female until she is about 26 or 27. Then she starts to be called a “woman”. Most women dread being called that before they are safely married.

Feminist western languages-cultures have, in the past 40 years, dropped this “insulting” use of language that had gone on for thousands of years. German men are no longer allowed to call Frauleins Frauleins (the word previously used to describe women younger than late twenties). French men are no longer allowed to call Mademoiselles Mademoiselles (French women younger than late twenties).

Luckily, unlike their French and German counterparts, American men have had the balls to continue to call women in their twenties “girls” (although in the super-sensitive 1990s men could get fired for calling someone over 18 a “girl”). Intelligent unmarried American women in their thirties call themselves “girls” as well. That’s cool, because it’s better that they now go with the flow rather than suggest, like in the 1980s and 1990s, that the use of “girl” for a woman aged 18-27 was somehow disrespectful to the younger woman (in reality it was seen as disrespectful to the older women who were NOT being called “girl”).

@King A

Um. No. Male prerogatives such as the option of paying for sexual activity were banned only as ugly wives gained extensive, unheard of political power in the early 1900s. The imminence of women’s suffrage caused White Knight politicians to ban alcohol. It was probably only the presence of Alpha billionaires and the likes of the young Kennedy alpha males (before Teddy’s prostate gave out) that women’s suffrage didn’t help rain down the anti-male lawmaking a lot sooner than it did. The “elites” on the “right and left” were pro-male from 1919 to about 1986.

We didn’t know it, but the billionaire alphas like the former CBS chairman apparently had an “Apres moi le deluge” attitude. The surviving wives of these dead billionaires would not have raised alpha sons to use the family money to help keep American culture alpha-friendly. The rise of the Murdoch family and the mangina billionaire Dick Scaife hasn’t helped men.

Yes, too many American Christian males (with the notable exception of the likes of Ron Paul) have allied with the left wing feminists and it can be dated back to 1986 IMHO.

By the way, is there anything more repulsive than a “Christian feminist”…? At least you can enjoy a piece of ass with regular secular feminists, which helps makes their inane little opinions tolerable. But a Christian feminist is the worst of both worlds — teeth-gnashingly insipid and prudish.

The unholy alliance of Christians and Feminists started in the 1980s after the left wing feminists realized that their “sexual revolution” was going to go on without them because they were all over 40 and their potential new male lovers wanted their newly adult daughters instead of them.

So the older lefty feminists turned either entirely against easy male female interaction that would lead to casual sex or they at least turned heavily against older men (their husbands) interacting easily with younger women (sexual harassment laws against employers & professors and Poison Pill policies such as high alimony and child support and redefining rape, raising the age of consent and the laws against mail order brides, etc, etc. etc.)

The religious males have been MORE THAN HAPPY to work with the lefty feminists on all this and they’ve made more progress in the past 15 years on their age old attempts to regulate other males than they had for hundreds and hundreds of years (before the Enlightenment). The life and career of Sam Brownback is all you have to know to understand this.

Under George Bush Junior and John McCain’s prospective line-up, mangina neocons were GIDDY about the way they could work with Hillary Clinton supporters to reshape the world (regulate men).

Anyway, like the Germans and Soviets invaded Poland together after they made their 1939 “unholy alliance,” the first joint move of the recently jaded older feminists and the holy rollers was in 1986 as they did joint press releases proclaiming all single men who tried to meet women to be AIDS carriers. I remember they especially liked to tell young women to beware of men “with life experience”.

Their biggest joint coup was in 1998 when the entire Republican Party was tricked into changing its stance on “sexual harassment in the workplace”. I watched in shock as Clinton, whom I didn’t like for other reasons, was condemned for doing the kind of thing most men in his position would do and have done for all of recorded history and pre-history.

In 2005, Spinster Senator Maria Cantwell used the religious freak Sam Brownback to get the entire GOP contingent of the US Congress to vote for VAWA in return for her not filibustering Alito for the Supreme Court. All except Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul that is.

Just this past weekend we saw Ron Paul being ignored by even “religious male pundits” in favor of a rabid feminist fake “Tea Party” female named Michele Bachmann, who just a month ago made an oath to ban “all forms of prostitution and pornography for once and for all” after an Iowa religious organization, run by manginas, asked her to make the oath.

Luckily she’s running in 4th position in New Hampshire now.

You’re deluding yourself if you think that, with females out of politics and out of the voting booths, men wouldn’t vote to lower back the age of consent, make prostitution legal again (at least not criminalizing men for being clients), repeal sexual harassment laws so they can start rogering their interns again and lower alimony and child support so they can trade in wives for younger models, all as OPTIONS.

Admittedly, it would be close. With the female vote, I understand that men would vote away feminist laws only with a bare majority of 50 something percent.

It’s all about OPTIONS. Religious men are either with us or against us on this. Feminists could not retain their current power without the compliance of religious males whose wives work on committees to “stop sex trafficking” or raise the age of consent, etc.

Ron Paul is religious but he is with men on preserving OPTIONS = Freedom.

“In most languages (societies) the word “girl” is used to describe a female until she is about 26 or 27. Then she starts to be called a “woman”. Most women dread being called that before they are safely married.”

I really don’t know any women of my socio-economic standing of whom this is true. No single female of my acquaintance prefers “girl” to “woman”. Maybe they’re out there, but I sure don’t know ’em. Personally, I haven’t called myself a “girl” since I was about 11, menstruating and wearing a bra. Nor would I ever want to.

Also, like many well-educated, reasonably articulate women, I’ve always liked older men. All LTRs have been with someone 7-9 years older, and I’ve had some brief relationships with men up to 24 years older.

@ rickb223: If your comment was intended to be pejorative,it’s laughable coming from a genuinely old dude. Unless you are really *exceptionally* good looking and got your game on (in which case, why are you here?), I doubt that many 48 year olds could even *snog* the average European/American woman aged 28…MINIMUM. You might have a sporting chance with a 38-year-old. My personal preference for older men (in the 7-10 year range…with rare exceptions going over that) is much more of an exception, than a rule.

If you’re living in Thailand or the Philippines with Xsplat, of course…different story…

I doubt that many 48 year olds could even *snog* the average European/American woman aged 28…MINIMUM. You might have a sporting chance with a 38-year-old.

Rick didn’t answer you over the weekend but here are 3 points:

1 – If a woman says she’d only have sex with men up to 10 years older, what she is really saying is that she’d have sex with any man who’d convincingly SAID that he was 10 years older.

Heartiste has noted that alphas will always be the age women want them to be.

So when Anonymous was 19 she may have slept with a few 40 year old guys who SAID that they were 29.

Then, let’s remember that women make exceptions for alphas so a 19 year old would sleep with a man who SAYS that he’s 34.

But he would definitely not have been 34. He could really have been 48.

QED: 19 year olds who say they’d only sleep with a man up to 10 years older could easily have already slept with a man in his late forties.

It always amuses me when a 17 year old says that the oldest male she ever slept with was 27. There’s no chance that these males were really that young. Think about it.

2- Plenty of young women know they will lose their looks before their 18th birthday or 22nd birthday. They quickly stop looking for an ideal age and may instinctively look for a guy with long telomeres (someone who has proven that he ages well). The corollary to that is that a man will probably want to get an older woman pregnant who has proven that she ages well also.

3 – The odds of an in-shape 48 year old man scoring with an 18 year old female are about the same as the odds of a 38 year old female scoring with an 18 year old male. If you don’t believe this is approximately correct, you clearly don’t believe the well known fact that women lose their SMV faster than men. Many feminized Americans, including American religious manginas, believe that cougars do better with younger men than their male counterparts do with younger women. To believe this you would have to admit that you believe that it is men who lose their SMV faster than women.

It’s funny. I don’t bring up the religious stuff. But it’s all some people can think about when they find out it is a part of a man’s life. That’s more about their issues than mine.

I’d be happy to dilate on why religion does not mean beta, but I know the audience here. You don’t contradict dogma in front of true believers: you don’t talk about rape fantasies at a “Take Back The Night” rally, and you don’t explain why “Insane Clown Posse sucks” in the middle of a juggalo meth pit. I’m not so naïve to think anyone inspired to speak at this site is of the temperament to hear the case.

You seek comfort in gently repeated platitudes, rhythmic repetition is all the proof a cultist needs. At what point does anyone draw the official connection between atheism and masculinity? Between nihilism and game? Not only does no one provide that reading from the Gospel According to Roissy, it is impossible for the very question to occur among a group of self-reinforcing, mindlessly repeating stooges.

Okay. I will take the untruths packed in every single clause of every single sentence of your above statement as the final confirmation of your almost proud absence of credibility with regard to anything on which you choose to comment.

Here is a hint, Jerr. If you want to be taken seriously, you can’t traffic in easily disproved guesses about the people against whom you seek to establish your bona fides.

Here is another hint. You a revolting human being with a tendency to project your proclivities onto other people and to define “alpha” as those qualities which correspond to your fetishes. You are fooling no one.

Finally, you have the minutely detailed memories of a jilted woman. Remind me who you are again?

Yes or no, if an 18 year old solid 9 wanted to have sex with you, would you partake?

Yes or no.

And, yes or no, are you OK with the new age of consent laws (from 16 to 18) that no civilization has ever before seen fit to implement on men and which which were wanted by older females, not traditionalist-minded social conservative men?

The world went 6000 years without seeing fit to raise the AoC beyond 16 and now it’s supposed to be “bringing back old Christian morals” to implement laws that were never implemented before??

And provide your approximate age and marital status for once please. You aren’t doing your credibility any favors by keeping that mysterious. You came across originally as the type of old man whose prostate was no longer working but you could also be a college-age male who wants the women his age all to himself.

I just noticed on the newer thread that you blamed feminists for sexing up teenage females and took “blame” off men for being attracted to them.

That kind of comment fits in here (isn’t a troll comment at all) although it’s just old social con boiler plate. It’s cool to see you take the blame off men for being attracted to legal age women.

So if you’re saying that it’s OK for heterosexual males to have sex with age of consent females (at least more OK than homosexuality), then you’re cool and I have no beef with you.

And if you’re saying that a man can have a traditionalist virgin as his wife, even with a large age gap, as long as he isn’t being a cad who takes her virginity with no real intention to marry her, I don’t really have a problem with that either (although I disagree with the moralizing about a man’s intentions).

My only problem is if you advocate men forever castrating themselves by making a voluntary decision not to ever try or otherwise partake in sexual activity with the best looking young women who are, in fact, available to an older man with game.

It isn’t “Christian” to voluntarily refuse to date with an age difference.

It’s the older women who trick manginas into thinking this way.

If you don’t think this way, then my bad. We can be cool with each other. I’d have no problem with you.

The idea of dominance and submission WITHIN a relationship should not influence how elevated women should be in society. The fact that so many men are beta doesn’t mean women should try to be successful.

But they didn’t always do so. Most guys are beta males. By definition only a few guys can be Alpha. Game can help, but lets be realistic, how many guys can basically destroy a lifetime of social conditioning to become Alpha? Devote years to what amounts to a psychic makeover? And most guys before say, 1970 or so were the same they were today.

It was just that most women were much lower in status. A secretary instead of say a corporate executive. Joe Average did not have to strive to be sexy, he just was. Because he had higher status than his wife. The HATE HATE HATE for beta males is recent and entirely driven by women’s equal/higher status. It gets worse the more commercials drive home “stupid White guys” stuff too.

Let me add the corollary is that to move up the corporate ladder into leadership, women HAVE to give up the Sexy. An Alpha male, the ones they desire, won’t provide support, caretaking to kids, all that stuff. He can and will go out and get a babe hotter, younger, etc. who is not in competition with him. Lucy Kellaway at the FT did research, all the top female CEOs were married … to Beta Males. Many were Indian, a higher tolerance for Beta males than say White women. But that’s the trade-off: corporate success means giving up sexy men for beta ones. Because climbing up to the CEO ladder means lots of moves, a lot ego-reinforcement at home, and all that stuff. Things no Alpha will provide or put up with.

One more “lady” that knows no math, just imagine if all men acquire the best positions in jobs, corporate function etc.the “ladies” would march on the streets, claiming for equal distribution and the rest of the crap. And do you know why is that? Our economy in our current state doesn`t produce enough jobs, therefore if 90% of men get all the best jobs, 90% or more women are out of the market place and therefore inferior in status, not a bad thing at all…if you are not an independent whining bitch.

Falling testosterone… yup, more than likely. Modern life is over-domesticated. Look at war… we’ve been at war for 10 years now and haven’t lost as many dead as we did at Iwo Jima (one battle) in World War II. (Not saying I’d rather have mass casualties, but folk have a tough time accepting than in war people die now when they did earlier.) Heck, I didn’t even have a bike helmet or know anyone who did growing up, but nowadays it’s not safe for kids to have a jungle gym. And look at how traumatized everyone gets about everything. Raise generations of people like that and testosterone levels drop because people don’t grow/develop or maintain “balls” if they do.

Another problem with women earning money is that women are hardwired to seek men who have higher status than them. Hence the more women who make good money the more men are going to seem like losers because they are making less than them. After all, some men who can’t find any women in the West travel to poor countries to pick a pretty, poor lass.

It depends on how they act in relation to the achievements of the girls they date. If they act ambivalent towards it, then that’s fine. If they act either in awe of it, or are dismissive about, then that’s bad and ends up in dumpsville. Those types of guys should stick to dating within their own class.

But then of course, that’s the same for any social relationship – nobody wants to associate/be friends with somebody who is either in awe of you all the time, or shows their own insecurities by having cheap digs at you and your achievements.

The bigger problem exists with the hotter tighter women making “minimum wage” than with the older career girls. Considering the options exist not to, it’s stupid for a male to live in a place where a babe can earn $10 for an hour of sitting at a desk polishing her nails. At a minimum, a man should live where the babe would have to spend the whole day doing that for $5. The high minimum wage in the US for girls helps them finance a cushy life on the carousel and effectively destroys the need for men to try to earn money themselves.

Bust your butt in education and in the to get a career with a modicum of status so that the girls don’t just giggle or roll their eyes.

Approach and initiate charming conversations with strangers to be rewarded more often with cold indifference, and at worst gossip and accusations, “He made a pass at me! Sexual Harrassment! How dare he!”

Dance around like a trained monkey doing pick up artist bullshit, Negging!, Push / Pull!, Magic Tricks! on the off chance that he might eventually get a chance at a little In / Out!

And when they finally get to the bedroom, the guy is supposed make all the moves, to read her freaking mind, whatever that is, and guess when she wants him to take charge and indulge her submission fantasies without crossing any boundaries that would mean he’s pressuring her. Date Rape! And when they finally get down to business, the lady gets to lean back relax, bask in all the attention and let the fellow do all the heavy lifting. Oh and god forbid he’s some freak who’s into anything unusual or kinky. (Fact: Only men suffer from paraphilias)

All women have to do is sit there and look cute while the fellas entertain them and try to dazzle them with their wonderful mating dance.

From where I stand the ladies have it pretty good. I wish I could lean back, relax, let somebody else do all the hard work and limit my input to gracious passive reaction “No thanks, it’s very kind of you to offer.” and “Thank you very much, I had a wonderful time. / How thoughtful of you for this gift!” See I wouldn’t even have to be a bitch about it like so many of our sisters are?

Ladies complain that they have the burden of the “male gaze” whatever the hell that is, and that they have to invest a lot in their appearance and looking good.

I don’t see how males have it that much easier in this respect. Sure maybe some long time husbands let themselves go and become total slobs. But nowadays men are expected to look good too, to wear fashionable fitted suits and modern hair styles. Women always used to complain about shaving their legs. Oh noes! Now men are supposed to depilate everything, face, back, chest and pubes. Fuck that metrosexual shit. Oh and only women get fat? Gee, spending hours out of scarce free time with fitness, weights or at the gym has its rewards, but it isn’t easy.

Sure I miss the ex who dumped this loser, but bachelor life is fucking great. Do what I want, when I want, or do nothing at all!

So gentlemen, I ask, are the pump and dumps with the inevitably infected sluts worth the trouble?

Persuade me.

Otherwise let’s go on a sex strike until some things around here change.

Sperm is expendable, eggs are expensive. That’s life.
There are lots of involuntary celibate betas, their ‘sex strike’ doesn’t sound like much fun.
In your pump and dump spree, you can alternate between sluts and good girls. Even if many good girls are only savvy little sluts. It’s your responsibility to assess the risks of STDs and unwanted pregnancies, and act accordingly.
The problem is, yeah, from your perspective, it’s not really appealing to invest emotionally and financially in a woman. But that’s only theoretical, because evolution is a smart bitch, she programmed us to fall in love because she knew that women are not objectively worth any trouble.
However, you can always raise your asshole shield and contain your emotions, and run before love hits you.
A lifelong pumping and dumping seems like the best strategy, especially when the slutiness and the sense of entitlement of most girls out there is killing their remaining femininity and turning them into expendable cunts.

“So gentlemen, I ask, are the pump and dumps with the inevitably infected sluts worth the trouble?”

Yes. For this reason:

“but bachelor life is fucking great. Do what I want, when I want, or do nothing at all”

FREEDOM.

If I overhear a woman say, “Where are all the good men?”, she is instantly & forever crossed of my “possibles” list. Because that tells me that she has PASSED OVER MANY great guys trying to ride the cock carousel. Which means I won’t even give her the time of day.

If women didn’t work, family incomes would drop so there would be less demand. Less demand would force prices to drop, so many families would be able to live off of the income of one person. I’d bet big money that women would be happier in that world.

So what about single women living on their own. Should they live with their parents until they get married, IF they even get married. Personally I wouldn’t want to live with my parents for years on end no matter how much I love them (which is very much). So I would need to support myself.

Did you notice the first sentence of my post? Besides I don’t want to get married simply on the basis of being provided for (I thought that was one of the main issues with men – being seen as nothing more than a walking wallet). And you act like marriage is a guaranteed thing for women.

what is sad is the fact that these women cannot openly share their real desires with the men in their lives. Why on earth would they not tell her husbands that is what they want?

For the exact same reason women shit test and prefer covert (psychological) forms of communication – to determine genuine status.

Women innately despise full disclosure; the feminine imperative HATES resorting to the overt. They know damn well that all the answers to the crossword puzzle are in the back of the book and the easiest solution would be to copy them over, but that is anathema to her enjoying the game.

Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male. She wants a Man who “gets it” on his own, without her petitioning him. The guy she wants to fuck is dominant because that’s ‘the way he is’ instead of who she had to tell him to be.

Observing the process will change it. This is the root function of every shit test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.

Then they need to be treated like little children. Seen, but not heard.
Because the beta-fying comments about how men need to be more understanding, getin touch with their feminine side, etc., does nothing to help. Men KNOW how to be dominant.
It’s just that they have been told for the last 30 years to NOT be.

“Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male.”

You couldn’t have said it better!

That’s also why I don’t get it why women’s magazines keep telling us we should ‘talk to our man about what we want in bed’ :S If there’s no one who knows how to be a grown up man anymore I’ll stay alone forever and have a child with donor sperm.

“If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.”

Then why the fuck did you have a feminist revolution in the first place you fat fucking pig, Maya? Get this, bitch: you don’t qualify men. Men qualify you. If you don’t know how to act like a woman or you need it explained to you, you are fucking worthless.

“If femininity has to be explained to a woman, she’s not the woman for him.”

Rollo, this is a very good and accurate point you made. but at the juncture of these women, they are now married. If they were dating these men it would be much easier to find someone else who fit the bill. But they are committed in a marriage and they owe it to themselves and their partner to try to communicate in some fashion their desires that are not being met. The only other option if the hubby isn’t stepping up is to either continue to go without her needs being met sexually or eventually seek divorce or cheat. i think they owe it to thier husbands to at least try to hint or something towards what they like. There is no way i would walk around holding in what makes me sexually excited if I am *MARRIED*?. I may not come right out but i’d surely start role playing myself to let the hubby know – uuuh let’s play. There are ways these women can hint towards wanting to be dominated sexually. It doesn’t have to be really outright telling their husbands. And who knows maybe the hubbies are dominate but may be afraid of turning her off by doing something like that. Sometimes all one needs is a hint and the floodgates open.

Neecy, they have to flat out tell their husbands. Men are like that. If you don’t say it, you aren’t communicating. Period. She needs to say “I want you to dominate my like I’m a little slut because it gets me off when you do it” because hinting doesn’t work. (Even hints, for men to get them, need to be directly stated… the “hinting” part of them will be in that they’re done privately and not out in front of everyone.) It has to get through and be received by their brain before they can take any action on anything. Puzzling background noise like Charlie Brown’s teacher doesn’t do it.

Having not been in a serious relationship for a minute this is good to know for future reference. So men do *prefer* direct communication as opposed to hinting or other indirect methods of communication from the women in their lives?

Something I have learned well over the past twelve years is the importance of being direct to your man. Even an obvious (to you and me) hint will not compute. However (and this is a big one), you must be blunt, yet delicate in many situations. It is a wife’s/LT girlfriends job to protect her man’s ego. Carefully choosing your phrasing could save lots of misunderstandings in your relationship any time it comes to his performance (and this is not just reserved to the bedroom, any manly performance applies). I have found that the more alpha the man the more careful one must be in these conversation’s.

Good points Sting! I agree that the delivery in communication to your partner is very important. i often wonder if the foundation of the “shit tests” some women do is a result of being passive/aggressive and unable to communicate directly their feelings to the men in their life. Hmmm

There ya go, Rollo!! YOU are the one who needs to be giving classes. men need to know this stuff. Maybe it sounds silly fo women to say its ruined if you have to TELL a guy how to do it, but its true. Men, for some reason do not GET this.

[Heartiste: Rollo’s explanation is also the reason why women will never be able to give a straight answer about what really turns them on in men.]

Ya, maybe it seems to silly to you, but imagine how silly it seems to us when you are wearing a power suit to work every day with hair spray and shoulders pads, then you want to come home and want us to fuck you in the ass and slap your ass cheeks while we’re at it, Can you say, “contradictory message”? Why do you need all this subterfuge?

To determine whether you are in fact the dominant male who’ll be fearless enough to still slap her mid-coitus ass in defiance of the whole of society telling you to “respect women” outside of the bedroom.

I’m sorry, but that’s pussy begging. If its not pussy begging, then its awfully damn close. Moreover, its a regression back in time, to the savannah and the paleolithic. It makes a mockery of ‘progress’ and ‘equality’ and reduces them to mere platitudes. Why not make it easy on all men and women, and be ‘overtly’ submissive? Why the games?

Why not make it easy on all men and women, and be ‘overtly’ submissive? Why the games?

You know, there is a unique form of sexual relationship where both partners overtly declare their desires to be dominant or submissive; it’s called homosexuality. If you lack the art or the temperance to exploit how women naturally communicate, you might want to look into homosexual as your preferred form of sexual release.

In what way is it pussy begging? What do you mean by that term? And why is progress and equality automatically good? This study is saying it’s not. It’s challenging that assumption which underlies all of feminism. And why should we be equal? Especially if even the women don’t want it? What feminism should have done is create equality of opportunity. It instead appears hell-bent on creating equality of outcome even for people who don’t want that outcome. Right now there are something like 16% of couples one of which is unemployed. I’m guessing in the 30’s that was more like 80%, but now we look at it as a bad thing. What is wrong with staying home to properly raise the children instead of having them raised my minimum wage couch-surfers? What is wrong with a man providing for a woman?

I think the key here is whether or not shit tests are conscious are unconscious. It appears that they are unconscious, and that women are not even aware they are doing them. Moreover, even if they are aware, they simply do not care; it is a right of passage to determine whether or not the male of interest has the intestinal fortitude to withstand the shit test. This is where it gets interesting. The burden of proof has just been placed on the male to prove his worth to the female, but almost all people agree that if you want to shore up the institution of marriage, you must make it palatable to *men* – not women.

Now if we are talking about an HB10, then by all means, shit test away. But if you are the average ordinary american woman with a couple of chins and cankles, you have no right to shit test. My point is if it is not an HB10, it is pussy begging. I won’t begrudge a man for jumping through hoops to score magnificent pussy, but it had better be magnificent for me to *consciously act dominant*. Superfluous, fungible pussy gets no such effort. In summation, I feel that the *burden of proof rests entirely on the female*, and it is my prerogative to shit test her. It is not up to men to *consciously prove their dominance/worth*. That job rests squarely on the shoulders of women.

Neil, if you the burden of proof is on the woman, you got the correct frame of mind anyhow – shouldn’t really matter if she shit tests you unless she goes overboard compared to your SMV (at which point she is a spoiled princess and deserves to be ignored – in fairness, since I dont live in the US, I have not come across this very often and these days there is very little motivation to move to the US so why bother. In any case, flying back to Asia next week :P)

I’d like to state for the record that if its Selma Hayek we’re talking about, then yes, I think any normal man should expect that it will require an extra special effort at displays of dominance and power. But anything less than a 10 and you should be shit testing her.

Shit tests are as subconscious and autonomous for women as staring at large breasts is for men. It’s not about what we consider justified or appropriate, it’s about what’s under the hood that’s motivating the behavior.

Your indignation at substandard women autonomously shit testing men obviously out of their league is just as unfounded as some beta herb who can’t help but stare at an HB9’s tits. It’s not about either one of them having some imagined ‘right’ to do so; it just IS. Would you get mad at the Doberman who just ate the big juicy steak you laid in front of it? Would you expect him not to eat it? No. So what do you do? You learn ways to play that game better within the given ruleset.

I’m going to disagree with the premise that all woman always shit test atonomously. I’ve hooked up with a lot of women who did not shit test. Usually the ones who did shit test me were younger, hotter and I usually didn’t up sexing them. I view the shit tests as a woman having doubts about your value and her attraction in you.

I do agree though that women prefer to communicate in the covert. And that they say one thing and do another and lead guys a stray. I guess so guys would call this all one big shit test. I even seen someone says feminism is one big shit test. I don’t agree with lumping feminism all together as a shit test, but I do agree in the sense that woman demanded feminism and men failed by not following the rule that a women should never be listened to.

Feminism at play… don’t worry, there’s always getting screwed and pregnant by a coworker or the boss for the pitter-patter of little feet to beat the biological clock if hubby’d not doing for them any more (he’ll just raise ’em).

The problem with women focusing of ‘achieving’ is two-sided: on the one hand it distorts their own sexual marketability, and it also disrupts the professional world because women have very different ideas of what constitutes ‘success’ than men.

Clearly the professional world does not benefit from a massive infusion of people who falsely evaluate the importance of skillfully imitating, regurgitating, and submissively taking orders; if you look carefully, you can see that these are the things that women (of whatever ability level) really do. Plus, according to the latest research, only a tiny minority of females have the same attitude toward work which is common for the typical male.

What happens then is a transformation of what ‘success’ really means and the ultimate loser is society at large. Take academia as one example: we used to make damn certain that graduates in any field had an excellent command of the material and could actually contribute something original. Women don’t measure success this way, and only care about the outer appearance or ‘status’ of success (in their minds, a lackadaisical college graduate is ‘higher status’ than a diligent bricklayer). This has permeated the entire professional world, and so we have a generation which simply cannot produce real results, because they’ve never been expected to before.

Put simply, mixing the standards of the sexes in the professional world has been a total disaster for everyone. Just as before in the pre-liberation days, if women want to contribute they are welcome to, but overhauling our standards for the sake of giving a better ‘balance’ or whatever is out of the question.

It only distorts it because of the high degree of affirmative action going on in many parts of the professional world. Some of the best managers I’ve worked with were women so they do exist.

Most of them had LTRs or were getting married in that time frame, too, so they are not exactly pricing themselves out of the market even if they hold one of the most prestigious jobs in their field (which by its very nature however requires a lot of pragmatism) and very well paid.

That problem exists more with women with useless degrees. And MDs, not sure why, maybe the desire to cure the world of disease is hard to measure up for guys or something.

[…] Roissy’s reminded me how I use this to my advantage. In a post about equality and the sexes, I commented: The upside is masculine men (if you can grow facial hair, you should) can rail these career chicks […]

In that moment of passion there is a willingness to be objectified and love making becomes one not where two people are connected, but instead there is a sense of impersonal disconnect. Is as if to feel a sense of connectedness, there needs to be moments of disengagement and distancing. During those moments we return to our core instinctual, reptilian self free of thoughts, direction, obligation, — surrendering and releasing ourselves to our own uninhibited desires.

The only way our club waving caveman ancestors could have totally monopolized females would have been for those very same females to utterly shun the caring, sensitive, non-judgemental niceguys on their own.

“For the haters and doubters who latch onto the whiny cry Fake! every time this rule of game is rubbed in their faces, ask yourself a simple question. Would Amy, the corporate lawyercunt in the story, feel
a. more turned on, or
b. just as turned off as before
if her lower rung lawyer lover started gaming her using the principles espoused on sites like this one?”

You forgot the correct answer c.) turned off even more

“She would love every last second of it, and her nag-to-blowjob ratio would quickly reverse.”

Of course! Women love to give blowjobs to losers!

Do you really think this guy can be dominant in bed but in everyday life he can be as lazy (compared to her) as he is now? I don’t like to imagine a loser believing he has a right to be dominant over a woman much more successful than he is. Yuck! Well, I’m sure it works with drunk one-night-stands because these women don’t have enough time to find out the truth about men they are having sex with, but if you live with a lazy loser you have plenty of time to clearly see that your man is not worth to submt to! No woman is stupid enough to follow some lazy loser. You said it yourself: “Women have a dog’s instinct for uncovering weakness in men”.

If you think I’m wrong, could you tell me where I failed? I’m willing to learn.

BTW I wasn’t arguing that Game doesn’t work, I just think that you can only use it if you are a man worth to submit to. If you are unimployed and watching TV all day and you still think you have a righ to be alpha aggressive towards your successful lawyer wife – you are probably wrong.

You make me wonder which is worse, ignorance or stupidity. You seem to think that a “loser” man, a “lazy” man, would be unable to beguile a woman.

I will now remedy your ignorance though I may not be able to penetrate your stupidity as I encourage you to research how violent felons, esp. serial killers, often receive genuine proposals of marriage in their mailbags; and I want you to imagine these men while they lazily jackoff to the enclosed nude photographs of girls just like you.

“You seem to think that a “loser” man, a “lazy” man, would be unable to beguile a woman.”

That’s exactly what I think. “Women have a dog’s instinct for uncovering weakness in men”.

“violent felons, esp. serial killers, often receive genuine proposals of marriage in their mailbags; and I want you to imagine these men while they lazily jackoff to the enclosed nude photographs of girls just like you.”

A man can easily get away with a lack of ambition or success, more easily than with a lack of game and psychosocial dominance.
It’s true that in the long run, it can become a problem, especially if kids are involved, but players are generally not interested in becoming providers.

But, in your particular case, Maya, I wouldn’t depart even with a package of skittles. I don’t do damaged goods anymore. And I feel sorry for the schmuck you net, if you get so lucky and he so unlucky.

“Wrong answer re damaged goods. Figure out what’s wrong and fix it. Make the you better, so there is not much baggage dropping on his shoulders.”

My past can not be fixed. I can’t go back in time and save myself. There will always be memories and emotional flashbacks of disgust, anger, pain and shame. I can only accept it and that’s what I already did. I can not erase it. I will always be damaged goods in some way and there will definitely be some problems with me in the bedroom when I get married.
Also, time by itself has left some irreparable damage already.

Nope, nope, nope. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are living a self-fulfilling prophesy, with a huge assist from the bottom-feeders who sup from the scum-stratum of this site. No damage is “irreparable,” except in the minds of victims like you and those who would exploit them, those people who lurk deep in the dank catacombs of game fora.

Stop listening to them and interacting with them. They are gropers copping a cheap feel in the dark. Get your medicine from Roisy, proceed with your rehabilitation, and keep your eyes on that pinhole of light you discovered far in the distance.

Have you been putting any of this wisdom into practice lately? Do you have any practical results yet?

I was recently in a situation one night where I felt my life was in danger if I didn’t have sex with the man I was with. Most people would have called it rape. As a woman, I’ve decided ahead of time if ever this happened to me, I’d either fight tooth and nail or just submit, depending on my chances with the first scenario — if they’re not good, it’s better just to go with the latter strategy and get out asap, and cut your losses. This was actually taught to a self-defense class I attended once, and the instructor gave the reason that if you fight, it just makes him angry and he is likely to hurt you and still get what he wants, which made a lot of sense. Anyway, that night, I decided to submit to his will. He is so much bigger/stronger than me, I had little chance of success with fighting him. Was it rape? I would have called it that… except the problem is that I’ve always been given the message that rape was a horrible experience, but it didn’t feel horrible or violating to me. It was forcible, and I felt terrified beforehand and after… but the actual sexual experience was highly pleasurable. Why? Maybe it’s because I can intellectually separate the actual sex from the situation? I attributed it to a combination of a few factors, the most important of which was that I was in total submission to him.

This is something that is hard even for myself to admit, because it could be misinterpreted. I am surely not promoting or excusing rape. I am giving evidence to support that women, deep down, when we release our resistance to being submissive & dominated, we can open ourselves up to a deeply pleasurable experience. It is my hope that our society finds ways to do this within the context of safe and respectful interactions and exchanges and relationships. That’s what I have always felt that this Chateau promotes, so you go guys.

In the meantime, I’m going to stay out of situations like this while still using what I learned from the experience.

“This was actually taught to a self-defense class I attended once, and the instructor gave the reason that if you fight, it just makes him angry and he is likely to hurt you and still get what he wants, which made a lot of sense.”

It makes no sense. Rape is more difficult to prove than a broken nose. See how hysterical are people here about false rape accusations.
I can’t believe that instructor gave you such advice … :S

“I’ve always been given the message that rape was a horrible experience, but it didn’t feel horrible or violating to me. It was forcible, and I felt terrified beforehand and after… but the actual sexual experience was highly pleasurable.”

Highly pleasurable? Rape? Really? It was emotionally pleasurable?! Are you sure it was rape? Check the definition of ‘rape’ first.

Are you going to report him to the police?

“In the meantime, I’m going to stay out of situations like this while still using what I learned from the experience.”

Why are you going to stay out of situations like this if it was ‘highly pleasurable’?

This article states that between 5% and 21% of women report having experienced an orgasm during rape, and that taking into account shame and embarrassment factors, the actual figure is likely to be 20%.

Plus, the article goes on to say that 20% of women also have highly sensitive g-spots, and therefore it stands to reason that even during violent and unwanted penetration, these particular women would be highly susceptible to orgasm, regardless.

In other words…a rape orgasm is far more likely to be a purely physiological response then to involve actual arousal, per se.

This also relates to the recent cases of men having been raped by either men or women. If men can have unwanted physiological reactions (ie. an erection and ejaculation) even *wanting* it (which I believe is true), then the same is true for women. Both situations are rape, and both are heinous.

“In other words…a rape orgasm is far more likely to be a purely physiological response then to involve actual arousal, per se.”

Exactly. This happened to me, actually. No matter how disgusting and traumatizing the whole thing was (even today I still fantasize about killing this man – I have to imagine stabbing him or cutting his head off if I want the memories to go away when they interfere with my everyday life) I still experienced orgasm – it was a boring, painful and empty orgasm, but it was an orgasm, I can’t deny it.

Who cares? We are not bunch of rapists here. We study game, remember. The relatively high percentage of women getting off while getting raped is a good proxy for their craving for alpha domination. I think that we all agree, and even you would prefer a guy who pulls your hair, slaps your ass and calls you a dirty little slut.

Hello Maya,
If you read what i said with emotional detachment, you could get the point. I don’t justify rape, it’s an awful thing. But the fact that some women can orgasm during it is an indicator that deep in the female hindbrain, there is a yearning to be dominated by a more powerful man.
That could be the reason why feminists assume that rape is about power: female projection.
It goes along with what heartiste said in his post, sex is generally not pleasurable for a woman if her guy is not dominant enough.
There are times for slow sweet lovemaking sessions, but most of the time, it’s better to stick with the raw animal impulses.

And what can i possibly play with King A, hide-and-seek in a church is borderline blasphemy.

“But the fact that some women can orgasm during it is an indicator that deep in the female hindbrain, there is a yearning to be dominated by a more powerful man.”

Some women orgasm during rape because it’s kind of easy to orgasm just because of the physical stimulation. It only says that there are some nerve endings down there and some reflex circuit that results in orgasm. Masturbation also results in orgasm and there’s no domination etc. How do you explain that?

“That could be the reason why feminists assume that rape is about power: female projection.”

Wrong. Rape is not used only to spread the DNA. I realized that again when reading comments like these (they are out of context, so if you don’t understand, read the whole conversation above – between me, Caddy and n/a):

“But, in your particular case, Maya, I wouldn’t depart even with a package of skittles.” -Cadnerd

“You are the girl for whom barely lubricated anal sex was invented.” -n/a

It’s clear that some men believe that threatening with sexual violence or actually executing it will humiliate a woman. Which is very true. If you want to deeply humiliate a woman – rape her.

Another proof: war rape. It’s used to humiliate the enemy – not only their wives and children, also men can be victims of war rape.

Rape is about power and it’s no female projection. Imagine being raped by a man you don’t like. Fun? Or humiliating?

Anonymous,
Are you sure rape orgasms have anything at all to do with a woman’s subconcious desire to be dominated? What about men who get raped by men and have orgasms? You don’t think it’s a physiological reaction to stimulation and possibly fear hormones?

It could be anything. We are all speculating here and interpreting the data of that study with intuition.
But i generally go with occam’s razor. A female orgasm is not easy to achieve through physical stimulation alone. An emotional attachment/domination rapport/any kind of other fantasy is generally required to make a woman cum.
Fear hormones? That was too easy. Nice try though.

“Masturbation also results in orgasm and there’s no domination etc. How do you explain that?”

I never fantasize during masturbation. I’ve read it somewhere (Kinsey I think, but not sure) that fantasizing during masturbation is more common in men. Female orgasm is perfectly possible without any emotional stimulation.

“Heartiste disagrees and he dealt repeatedly with that issue.”

Oh, Heartiste is infallible😛

I can help you – How do you explain war rape whose victims are not only women but also kids and men?

I don’t know how it is for other women, but…
“But i generally go with occam’s razor. A female orgasm is not easy to achieve through physical stimulation alone. An emotional attachment/domination rapport/any kind of other fantasy is generally required to make a woman cum.”
Nothing like that is required for me.
“Try masturbation without fantasizing about anything. Female orgasm requires an emotional stimulation.”
I can think about kittens, flowers, quantum mechanics or whatever else I want, orgasm requires no fantasy. Orgasm is mechanical (but like I said, maybe not for other women). It seems Maya agrees too. I wonder how many other women have it this way.

I thnk it varies for different women. Some women simply orgasm by mechanical/physical means despite who the man is or how they feel about him, while others need a deeper emotional connection to a man to experience an orgasm. So the key is its different for every woman. Also some women orgasm a lot easier than others. Some women can orgasm with every sexual encounter they have while others can only orgasm infrequently.

“Who cares? We are not bunch of rapists here. We study game, remember. The relatively high percentage of women getting off while getting raped is a good proxy for their craving for alpha domination.”

Thank you, Anonymous, this was also my point. I didn’t know for sure what level of controversy my comment might stir up, but the reason for my posting this was to share my extreme personal evidence that supports this concept.

If other women or men here had different feelings/responses to rape, my story doesn’t invalidate yours, and yours doesn’t invalidate mine. We are here to learn from each other, and if we can’t at least do that, then why bother interacting at all? Arguing for the sake of arguing is a waste of my time, and I won’t reply to people who respond with anything less than compassionate to my vulnerable sharing here. I get that for some people, especially the female commentators, this blog and those who agree with it “push your buttons.” But a button that isn’t there can’t be pushed, and all buttons are self-created (or destroyed).

“Some women simply orgasm by mechanical/physical means despite who the man is or how they feel about him, while others need a deeper emotional connection to a man to experience an orgasm.”

Well, it’s difficult for me to comment on that and this is only speculation now, but I believe that everyone can orgasm by mechanical stimulation. I don’t know how is it during sex? There should be some emotions (or an alpha man in the bed) I believe, otherwise the orgasm is worthless and empty.

Let me explain: I was raped and I experienced orgasm during that. Read my previous posts how emotionally traumatizing it was and how it still is, so mechanical orgasm is not necessarily a positive experience. Actually, it’s an empty and useless experience, just a reflex triggered by physical stimulation. But I don’t know what triggers orgasm during sex? I guess that same reflex can be triggered by different stimuli. Imagine vomiting – I can vomit if I push my fingers in the throat, but also from unpleasant smells etc.
What do you think? (I really was only speculating this time)

Maybe, but your orgasm will be much more powerful if you imagine a strong man coming out of the blue and ravishing you.
And i’ve heard girls saying the exact opposite.

“I never fantasize during masturbation. I’ve read it somewhere (Kinsey I think, but not sure) that fantasizing during masturbation is more common in men. Female orgasm is perfectly possible without any emotional stimulation”

Assuming that you’re not making shit up, it is well established that the emotional stimulation can lead to much more powerful orgasms. And that women, highly emotional by nature, are receptive to any external emotional stimulus.

I don’t like your tone. If you’re having your period. Go bitch somewhere else.
I’m also talking about my personal experience. The girls that i dominated in the sack and outside the bedroom were the most likely to have spine-shattering orgasms.

“Oh, Heartiste is infallible”

Not funny.
He talked about the issue more elegantly than anyone else. And yes, he’s more infaillible than many delusional mainstream writers.

“How do you explain war rape whose victims are not only women but also kids and men?”

Maybe because war is not like peace. During war, humiliating the enemy is premeditated. I would feel humiliated if someone raped the females that i care about. And if i hate someone, fucking his woman would be a great way to boost my ego.
The way i see it, rape in itself, independently from the context, is an evolutionary strategy for a minority of men who don’t have the status or personality traits that attract women. It’s all about sex, they have an erection, they are total losers who cannot talk women into bed, therefore they resort to violence.
During war, rape could be interpreted as a weapon, but also as a reward for the soldiers. They don’t have an erection only because they want to shame their enemies, but also because they are attracted to tits and ass.
As for kids and men, a man with little ethics who couldn’t stick his dick in a hole for a long time can fuck anything that walks. Prison is a good example.

Maya as i said its so very different for every woman. There are so many things that can be at play as to why some women may or may not orgasm based on the stimuli. The fact is every woman is different. Some women can see a dominant male in his state regardless of the situation (yes even sometimes rape) and can orgasm from that. Some women can seperate something traumatic like rape and never experience pleasure b/c they are so disconnected and in fear. All *some* women simply need is physical stimuli (regardless of the male) to orgasm. While others need mental/emotional AND physical connection to experience pleasure and/or an orgasm. Its not a one size fits all.

lolz,
Sorry we got carried away here. I guess orgasms during rape can happen for many different reasons. I just didn’t think it was the norm to have that because of feelings of being dominated. I still don’t know.

No, I don’t agree with that. I believe that the part of the brain responsible for reproduction/sex/orgasm is very similar in every female. All women like good-looking alpha men. Similarly all men like young beautiful fertile women.

“Assuming that you’re not making shit up, it is well established that the emotional stimulation can lead to much more powerful orgasms. And that women, highly emotional by nature, are receptive to any external emotional stimulus.”

I believe that. I believe that orgasm, which is a reflex, can be triggered by different stimuli.

“Rape is not fun. No one said that. Your rapist should be locked up and castrated as far as i’m concerned.
It’s just confusing that women can orgasm during such a traumatic experience. And we take that as another indicator for women’s preference of dominant men. What is so difficult to understand?”

To see if this indicates anything, you’d have to know what fraction of rape victims who had an orgasm had an experience like Maya’s, and what fraction had one similar to lolz’s. Both of the experience’s are possible, apparently. An orgasm can be purely mechanical for some, and due to domination for outhers.

“… rape victims might be afraid of the slippery slope this could cause, and that’s understandable. I just thought it unlikely to happen here, given the (presumed, average) high level of intelligence of this reader-base, which is why I felt safe sharing …”

Highly intelligent discussion is providing personal experience or scientific evidence in my opinion and we don’t have it here on this comment board. What we have here are “theories” based mainly on delusions of the commenters. If this is high intelligence for you …

Every post you write is the weirdest thing I’ve ever seen. I have to say you live in a world completely different from mine – I’ve never heard a woman talking like you do in my whole life.

“… rape victims might be afraid of the slippery slope this could cause, and that’s understandable. I just thought it unlikely to happen here, given the (presumed, average) high level of intelligence of this reader-base, which is why I felt safe sharing …”

Highly intelligent discussion is providing personal experience or scientific evidence in my opinion and we don’t have it here on this comment board. What we have here are “theories” based mainly on delusions of the commenters. If this is high intelligence for you …

Every post you write is the weirdest thing I’ve ever seen. I have to say you live in a world completely different from mine – I’ve never heard a woman talking like you do in my whole life.

Heartiste, I don’t understand your reply and I’m way too angry to look up the words right now …

Let me explain … Mine was unpleasurable (although I had a ‘mechanical’ orgasm) and YES I believe all victims suffer A LOT.

Why do you think rape is forbidden if it’s sooo fun?

Please provide evidence where raped women claim that they liked the experience (not that they had an orgasm – orgasm is can be purely mechanically triggered reflex!).

Lolz is not evidence because she’s clearly a troll.

[Heartiste: A significant minority of women orgasm during rape. Now either their bodies betray their arousal when overcome by a powerful man having his way, or it is a mechanical reflex designed by evolution to ensure that their reproductive tracts aren’t flayed to bits by a surprise penis. Coupled with the fact — yes, FACT– of women preferring pulp porn that features a lot of rape by masked men, we have pretty good circumstantial evidence in favor of a certain nontrivial percentage of women enjoying on some visceral, animalistic level the fantasy of succumbing to rape by a dominant man, if not the actual experience of it.
However you slice it, it ain’t a pretty pony and rainbow candy glimpse into women’s ids.]

Rape is not fun. No one said that. Your rapist should be locked up and castrated as far as i’m concerned.
It’s just confusing that women can orgasm during such a traumatic experience. And we take that as another indicator for women’s preference of dominant men. What is so difficult to understand?

There are many women who have been raped, and not all of them see this as an excuse for arrogance and ignorance.

You admit to having no sexual experience, to being, in essence, a deluded child, and yet you come here and post as if you have something to say. This is tiresome.

What’s worse is that, like many insufferable prigs, you have zero sense of humor. When I posted that you were the girl for whom barely lubricated anal sex was invented, I expected a laugh at the “barely.”

But no. Just endless self-infatuation and self-importance. You need to think about what I’ve written here.

[Heartiste: A significant minority of women orgasm during rape. Now either their bodies betray their arousal when overcome by a powerful man having his way, or it is a mechanical reflex designed by evolution to ensure that their reproductive tracts aren’t flayed to bits by a surprise penis. Coupled with the fact — yes, FACT– of women preferring pulp porn that features a lot of rape by masked men, we have pretty good circumstantial evidence in favor of a certain nontrivial percentage of women enjoying on some visceral, animalistic level the fantasy of succumbing to rape by a dominant man, if not the actual experience of it.
However you slice it, it ain’t a pretty pony and rainbow candy glimpse into women’s ids.]

I believe you that there’s evidence that women fantasize about having passionate sex with powerful men – I have such fantasies myself.

But please stop confusing real rape with such sex.

You said it yourself:
“Beta = Potential rapist.
Alpha = It just happened!”

A few more questions for you to think about:

1.) While there might be a small minority of women with a pleasurable “rape” experience (like this troll lolz) – although in my opinion this is not a real rape! – there is a huge majority of women who are seriously traumatized, sometimes for life. How do you explain that?!

2.) Aren’t you afraid that men reading your blog could misinterpret your posts and start believing that women actually want to be raped?

3.) Please, post evidence that women prefer porn with a lot of rape by masked men. I’m interested what kind of porn it is to see if it’s really rape or maybe just “rape”.

4.) Why do you think rape is forbidden if it’s every women’s fantasy?

5.) Why do you think women obsess so much about rape? There must be some evolutionary reason for that, don’t you think?

Also, just to solidify my apparent “Troll” status here (lol… or should I say lolz) I should clarify that I am from outside of that 20% — I didn’t even have an orgasm. It was the emotional feeling of being dominated into submission, and penetrated, that was pleasurable.

And no the entire thing was not, and I am not proud of any of this, except perhaps my ability to remain level-headed and even derive something of value from it, and offer my story in the hopes that I can help these pretty lies to perish. It’s a long-shot I know, but what can I say? A girl can dream.

Also, if you really enjoyed the rape, and I mean genuinely enjoyed it and thought it was a good experience, doesn’t it make it not rape? It could have been rape to begin with. But later.. doesn’t it become just “sex you didn’t know you wanted”? And I’m not talking about the rape where you have an orgasm but become traumatised and damaged. If that is so, then can you really say “women enjoy rape”?

There is quite a bit of evidence that women have actual rape fantasies (I’ll not link to it as I don’t care to look now, but I believe Heartiste posted a study about this not too long ago). Not just fantasies of having sex with very dominant men. This does NOT mean that these women actually want to be raped (as was already said in the post you quoted yourself from Heartiste). You have got to stop coming into these discussions with your emotions all twisted and hamster spinning in overdrive and take a step back and read-then reread what people are saying. Then take some time to think about it without your emotions tangling you up.

1) Even though you disagree that lolz experience may not have been rape it doesn’t mean she isn’t traumatized by it. She, in my opinion, made a valid decision by not fighting back as this man could have seriously messed her up or killed her. By playing along, she is alive and well. You don’t have to understand that for it not to be true. The fact that she did find some aspect of that experience pleasurable quite likely makes the whole thing even more traumatizing to her. Your one horrible experience does not encapsulate every rape ever experienced.

2) If Heartiste believed this he would lose my respect and I believe the respect of many of the people here. Any men stepping away from this site with that idea had it in their heads before they came here and understood only what they wished to in order to validate themselves. In other words, they would rape anyway.

3) Good grief, Maya. Of course this porn is not really rape. It is actors playing a role, as is most porn. That is likely part of the appeal as it remains within the fantasy but still is safe.

4) Again, these women FANTASIZE about it. I have fantasized about the feeling of jumping off a cliff, it does not mean I wish to do it. It is the same for the women described here.

5) I don’t know any women who obsess about rape but those who fantasize about it are simply looking for the dominate male. I assume you understand the implications of this as you wish this for yourself.

I agree with Emma. If you enjoyed the sex than it clearly wasn’t rape.
I don’t know what would you like to tell us, lolz, that women should try becoming rape victims because it’s so ’emotionally pleasurable’?

“3) Good grief, Maya. Of course this porn is not really rape. It is actors playing a role, as is most porn. That is likely part of the appeal as it remains within the fantasy but still is safe.”

I know it’s not real rape. I just want to see whether it’s some kind of passionate sex or some kind of ‘real rape’ (with SMV disparity and everything).
Can’t you see the difference in the movies when they want to show the real rape or when they want to show passionate sex. “Real rape” is disturbing to watch.

“5) I don’t know any women who obsess about rape but those who fantasize about it are simply looking for the dominate male. I assume you understand the implications of this as you wish this for yourself.”

In your opinion. If there are, as has been said, a lot of women watching this type of porn, it is irrelevant what you think. If women are getting off on it, it is what they like, whether it looks “real” to you or not.

“Why do you think women obsess so much about rape?”

This implies that the majority or all women.

“There are women who are constantly afraid of being raped.”

This implies some women. Big difference. I would argue that these women that you speak of, a fraction are truly terrified of rape and have never been. A fraction have been and never want to experience it again, and the other fraction are obsessed out of curiosity and fantasy. But again, this does not mean they truly want to experience the act. They do realize fantasy and reality are two very different things.

from Stingray:
“Even though you disagree that lolz experience may not have been rape it doesn’t mean she isn’t traumatized by it. She, in my opinion, made a valid decision by not fighting back as this man could have seriously messed her up or killed her. By playing along, she is alive and well. You don’t have to understand that for it not to be true. The fact that she did find some aspect of that experience pleasurable quite likely makes the whole thing even more traumatizing to her. Your one horrible experience does not encapsulate every rape ever experienced.”

I appreciate someone speaking up for me, given that the thread has been driven completely off point and probably should not even be dignified with a response. Yes, it was rape; no I will not go into detail in order to defend this statement. I was filled with abject terror both before and afterward, and it was a traumatic experience, and to find it pleasurable and admit it is not simply a curiosity (my original point) but a humiliation.

That being said, if certain people want to call it something else, that’s okay with me. Other women and rape victims might be afraid of the slippery slope this could cause, and that’s understandable. I just thought it unlikely to happen here, given the (presumed, average) high level of intelligence of this reader-base, which is why I felt safe sharing. But I could have known better; feminine emotions can overpower rational thought, which is of course both the reason for the dramatic female reactions on this thread, and the original cause for how I got into said situation in the first place.

That’s interesting — So not only are we inclined to be submissive to a masculine presence outside of ourselves, but we women even allow ourselves to be overpowered — read: dominated — by something within us: our own emotions. Maybe there’s a connection between the two. When I am with an alpha male who can keep me in-check, I find it a lot easier to remain level-headed and calm.

So it was rape after all?.. Sorry, it’s just that you originally described it as not violating and not this horrible experience you expected, so it sounded like you were ok with it. But the way I see it now, it was more like having an involuntary orgasm on a psychological level, or am I wrong? If that is so, then yours and Maya’s experiences are not that different after all. I guess it was a pleasurable (in a way) rape then, but you still wouldn’t describe it as a good experience overall. Just trying to understand here.

lolz says “When I am with an alpha male who can keep me in-check, I find it a lot easier to remain level-headed and calm.”

A thousand times, yes.

lolz, I find your experience humbling, especially as a mother who promised herself she would always fight in the situation you were in. I think you made a wise and very difficult choice. I am sorry for yours, and Maya’s experiences.

Thank you Stingray, for the acknowledgment… and I am so happy you are a mother, I love that we can re-instill these understandings about masculinity/femininity in our children, so they don’t have to learn the harder way like we are.

“““Real rape” is disturbing to watch.” In your opinion. If there are, as has been said, a lot of women watching this type of porn, it is irrelevant what you think. If women are getting off on it, it is what they like, whether it looks “real” to you or not.”

1.) you clearly have no idea what kind of porn we are talking about here (neither do I)

““There are women who are constantly afraid of being raped.”
This implies some women. Big difference. I would argue that these women that you speak of, a fraction are truly terrified of rape and have never been. A fraction have been and never want to experience it again, and the other fraction are obsessed out of curiosity and fantasy. But again, this does not mean they truly want to experience the act. They do realize fantasy and reality are two very different things.”

Do you also “fantasize about being robbed/ killed/ drowned /suffocated / diagnosed with cancer but that doesn’t mean you truly want to experience the act”?

I said yesterday I have fantasized about throwing myself off a cliff to see what is feels like and, no, I don’t wish to do it. I have also fantasized about being robbed. I have worked hard in learning to protect myself, carry a gun and have learned to fight as best I can for a woman. I fantasize about it often. It would be a hell of a rush and, NO, I never want to experience that fear, ever. But the fantasies about it come anyway, and the rush I would experience if it were to ever happen. Killed? Same thing. This is why they are called fantasies. Of course I never want them to happen, but there is a small aspect that is alluring.

OK, I see what you’re saying … BUT one thing is fantasizing about, I don’t know, a war and watching your family members being violently killed and one completely different thing is really experiencing it. A huge majority of people who experienced war have PTSD and claim this was the most horrible experience in their lives. It’s very similar with rape.
What I don’t like is that on this blog they always repeat how women fantasize about rape etc. It’s like we are a bunch of rapists here. Imagine this was a blog for people who liked pushing other people over the cliffs and we would be discussing how some 20% of people (like you Stingray, and me – I also fantasized about that) even fantasize about falling off the cliff. Can you imagine what could happen?

What you fail to realize, or cannot comprehend, is that no one fantasizes about losing ones family to war. They only fantasize about the possibly glory war could bring. Then they take a step back and think about what an actual war would be like and end the fantasy as they realize the implications of a true war. It is the same way with a rape fantasy. This is why women who have them, don’t actually want to BE raped. They fully realize a real experience would be horrendous.

No one here is advocating rape. No one. Most everyone here is able to detach reality from the fantasy. You seem like you are having a very difficult time with this aspect of it. It is simply fantasy Maya. That is all. You keep talking about the reality of it. We all know that the reality of all the situations you described would be terrible. You seem to be the only one who cannot distinguish the difference between fantasy and reality here. Fantasy=the thrill of flying off the cliff. Reality=you die at the bottom. Fantasy=I save my best friend and drag him to safety in the middle of war. Reality=thousands of people die, possibly even my family. Fantasy and reality are very different.

lolz wrote: I’ve always been given the message that rape was a horrible experience… but the actual sexual experience was highly pleasurable. Why? …

The disconnect isn’t in the mind of the rape victim, whom sociological geniuses ask to bear the full contradiction (and painfully shameful dilemma) of sexual assault. The disconnect is in the sloganeering of Women’s Studies departments who wield manichean influence over our standards of right and wrong. To regard sexual assault as pure violence ignores the salient element of the attack — to call it all “assault” and none “sexual.” As Adam Carolla and Drew Pinsky used to put it in one of their recurring sarcastic Loveline routines, “Rape is not a sexual crime! It is an act of violence! (except you cum at the end)”

This is something that is hard even for myself to admit, because it could be misinterpreted. I am surely not promoting or excusing rape.

Not only must we not permit rape, we must not even hint that rape is minimally acceptable if we want any sort of social stability among the sexes. That explains why even tiptoeing near this “pretty lie” brings out the fangs in victims, who are understandably hypersensitive to any loosening of the interpretation.

And yet, and yet … it’s an undeniable fantasy, like any boldly transgressed taboo is by definition. This is not a “Take Back The Night” rally. This is where truth is spoken. The deepest darkest truths of the id are allowed expression here without politically correct minders refashioning them into lies.

It is impossible to have a rational conversation with even nominal rape victims like Maya. I see it frequently when the topic comes up in the abused: the red face, the jolt of shame from memories that can’t be repressed, the reliving of her formational event as a woman, the inchoate raging babble in response encouraged so irresponsibly by the shrieking, black-and-white partisans of feminism. So Maya’s contradictory and reflexive outbursts are not insightful in the least, and yet excusable.

It is even more impossible for rape victims to regain the imagination to liberate them from their NAWALT brains. Not only do they presume the horrible parts of the experience necessarily must constitute the entire experience, they also presume their experience defines it universally for all women everywhere.

Men are afraid to speak truth about this because it’s easier to blanket-condemn sexual aggression openly while engaging in S&M privately. lolz deserves a lot of credit for her courage. Unlike the culture at large (and most psychologists), we are conversant in the contradiction here. Not that this is any substitute for true therapy, but therapists often overcorrect through ideology and miss the key element that contributes to the shame of the assault: the animal pleasure that leads to self-hatred.

That explains why even tiptoeing near this “pretty lie” brings out the fangs in victims, who are understandably hypersensitive to any loosening of the interpretation.

And yet, and yet … it’s an undeniable fantasy, like any boldly transgressed taboo is by definition. This is not a “Take Back The Night” rally. This is where truth is spoken. The deepest darkest truths of the id are allowed expression here without politically correct minders refashioning them into lies.

This is good, clear, insightful writing.

There are times when I question your thinking process, King, and find that your noble ideals are optimistic to the point of being cataracts, however it’s plain that you engage sincerely and with skill.

We may have different social and sexual agendas, but our allegiences aren’t so far apart, in the big picture. We both prefer truth.

“It is impossible to have a rational conversation with even nominal rape victims like Maya. I see it frequently when the topic comes up in the abused: the red face, the jolt of shame from memories that can’t be repressed, the reliving of her formational event as a woman, the inchoate raging babble in response encouraged so irresponsibly by the shrieking, black-and-white partisans of feminism …”

Very interesting, but I don’t understand it. Could you write something more about this?

“Not only do they presume the horrible parts of the experience necessarily must constitute the entire experience, they also presume their experience defines it universally for all women everywhere.”

This blog also claims that ALL men are sexually attracted to young beautiful girls, while the truth is there are many many men attracted to overweight postmenopausal women, you know …😛

Maya wrote: Bullshit. You couldn’t be more wrong. Go play with King A.

Excuse me? What kind of outburst is this?

Sloppy, emotive, mercurial. You are all over the place, woman. We are not your lifeless body pillow of catharsis to be hugged or punched as your hormones dictate. (Neither is your blogcrush Hartiste, by the way.)

The first thing you should have learned about a place like this is there is no room for the typical drama-queen antics that find way too much effectiveness among the mopey obsequious swamps of beta servility.

Deal with your personal issues personally. Stop spilling them all over the grown-up conversation. If you need guidance, ask humbly. We understand that your buttons are pushed by this issue. Message received. Now you understand the general audience here is not interested in which side-issues happen to trip Maya’s triggers. And we certainly will not forsake an interesting and truthful conversation about a taboo subject just to appease your sensitivities. This forum cannot be refashioned around Maya’s healing. Take what medicine you can incidentally.

Crusades that are transparent expressions of your unresolved personal experiences will be ridiculed until you learn the deference required of those who might actually help you.

Amazing… Your calm, direct, and rational words made me feel relaxed, like things were under control — and I wasn’t even the woman you were addressing.

This speaks to what I was referring to about men keeping women and their outbursts in check. Apparently it not only gets you laid, but promotes the emotional stability of other women in the group and probably the group as a whole — which makes us (at least the nurturing types who value the well-being of others) swoon. If you men are like this in real life, it’s pretty likely you’re also reaping benefits other than gold stars.

A thoughtfull, balanced article about male sexuality, written by a woman.

Lust for life – Bettina Arndt

THE 71-year-old virgin was a surprising volunteer for the sexuality project. As he expected, he didn’t have that much to contribute to my research on male sexuality, but his story was intriguing. Here was a man who hadn’t planned to miss out on sex and marriage but so wanted his first experience to be special that he’d waited for years hoping to meet the right woman. Despite plenty of dating, she never showed up. Hence he’d ended up on his own, spending his whole life struggling with his strong sexual urges.

Yet he now wonders whether he has missed out on all that much. He wrote eloquently about watching his friends go through the pain of marriage break-up or struggling to cope without much sex in their marriages. ”I’m not complaining. I’ve had a good life. There are no arguments in my household,” he said chirpily. Certainly no arguments about sex.

From the outside, life as a hot-blooded married heterosexual man doesn’t look much fun. America’s best-known sex guru, Dan Savage, reaches much the same conclusion. The wildly popular advice columnist is currently in the news as a result of a thoughtful profile published recently in The New York Times that focused largely on Savage’s attack on America’s obsession with fidelity.

Openly gay Savage, whose sex advice column is syndicated across the world in more than 70 newspapers and attracts millions more online, started offering heterosexuals advice about sex as a joke but quickly attracted a huge following with his hard-hitting, provocative take on bedroom manners and responsibilities.

He promotes mutual care-taking, suggesting both men and women adhere to his famous acronym GGG – all lovers should be good, giving and game. He writes at length about the relationship between low libido and monogamy. ”You can have strict monogamy or you can have low libido, Ladies, but you can’t have both.” But then he adds. ”Oh, and guys? You need to accept those tide-you-over blowjobs and handjobs just as cheerfully as she gives them.” That’s if she gives them.

When New York Times interviewer Mark Oppenheimer suggests Savage’s views are tainted by the American gay male view of the sexual world, with its tolerance for pornography, fetishes and a variety of partnered arrangements, Savage responds that the male gay world simply expresses what men are really like when they don’t have women reining them in. ”Women, straight women, are in relationships with men. Doesn’t it help to know what we’re really like? Women can go on marrying and pretending that their boyfriends and husbands are Mr Darcy or some rom-com dream man. But where’s that going to get them? Besides divorce court?”

That’s where he is wrong. Faced with the misery of a lifetime spent dealing with the frustrations of monogamous sex-starved marriage, most men don’t leave. On my website forum, there’s a letter titled ”Do I stay or do I go” from a 40-year-old married man who’s gone for years without any sex in his marriage. The letter has attracted hundreds of responses, many from men urging him to go. He left, for a while, but then came back and is struggling on, trying to make his marriage work. Like most men who write to me, he loves his wife and children and feels he has too much to lose if he leaves.

Dan Savage is right in thinking that many heterosexual men share the same voracious sexual desires that have come to define gay male sexuality. But most are doing an incredibly good job keeping a lid on them.

We hear constantly about men in trouble over sex. Men in trouble for not keeping their trousers zipped, for groping and harassing women, men caught out looking at pornography, or gazing at women in the wrong way. But what we never hear about is men’s restraint, the remarkable stoicism of current generations of heterosexual men who cop it sweet, despite their immense frustrations.

Last year The Sunday Age published a sweetly amusing story about men’s sexual fantasies, written by a man who describes himself as a ”respectable, married” man who has spent the last few years taming what he calls his ”inner goat”. There’s no place for hidden sexual yearnings in his proudly reconstructed world – he boasts he keeps his goat firmly locked inside a concrete pen, tethered to a post. Yet he ruefully acknowledges that sometimes it manages to escape and he finds himself mentally undressing a woman as she walks past.

The online responses to his article were intriguing – the men who applauded his courage and the women who condemned him for expressing such thoughts. ”Men, you could put your minds to much better use than fantasising about women you are never going to get … There’s something you can do: you can respect women and learn to control your pathetic, primitive minds. Meditation helps,” wrote one smug woman.

A male responder hit the nail on the head, summing up what’s happened here: ”While the feminists and soft men like to kid themselves that they are changing our nature, all they’ve really done is teach men to keep their mouths shut, while our minds still explore exactly the same topics they always have.”

There’s an interesting book – The Testosterone Files – written by a feminist writer who had a sex change and became a male. The author, Max Wolf Valerio, describes being blown away by the urgency of his newly acquired sexual urges, his constant sexual fantasies – sex is now food, he says. He cringes when he sees female audiences on talk shows pursing their lips, shaking their heads at sheepish male guests who are supposed ”porn addicts” or ”womanisers”. He’s shocked by women’s ready assumption of moral superiority.

”How to explain this to women?” Valerio ponders. ”There is this thing about men that they cannot completely know. Few people want to believe that there could be a real chasm, a chemically induced difference of sexual drive between the sexes. Few want to believe that there might be any difference at all that is not socially constructed.

”Now that I am Max, I see that this rift, this fundamental chasm between men and women’s perceptions and experience of sexuality, is one that may never be bridged.

”There certainly can be no hope for understanding as long as society pretends that men and women are really the same, that the culture of male sexuality is simply a conflation of misogyny and dysfunction. That the male libido is shaped and driven primarily by socialisation, that can be legislated or ‘psychobabbled’ out of existence.”

The strong male libido remains, even if the inner goat now must remain firmly tethered. Men live with up to 20 times the testosterone of women and that makes it very tough to cope with decades of monogamous marriage, particularly when sex is offered very reluctantly – ”like meaty bites to a dog”, as one man put it.

Yet most men are doing a remarkable job remaining true to their women. For all the talk about unfaithful men, most married men succeed at monogamy most of the time. Just look at the statistics. The Sex in Australia survey of almost 20,000 people found just 5 per cent of partnered men had strayed in the previous year. Now admittedly, these tiny numbers can add up over a long marriage or relationship, but while there are men who are compulsive philanderers, this wasn’t the case for most of the men taking part in my research who admitted to having had an affair.

The overwhelming majority wanted to be faithful and were succeeding, even though there may have been a lapse along the way – a one-night stand at a conference, a few weeks of illicit pleasure, or even an affair lasting months or perhaps a year or two. But nothing compared with the many years of restraint.

In one of Dan Savage’s amusing Q&A sessions with college students now available on YouTube, he argues men should get credit for this. ”If you are with a guy for 40 years and he cheats on you three or four times, he is GOOD at monogamy! Not BAD at monogamy. We think of monogamy the way we think of virginity – it exists until you f— someone and then it’s gone forever. We need to think of monogamy the way we think of sobriety – you can fall the f— off the wagon and still get back up.”

Men’s well-known urge for sexual variety has long been acknowledged by psychologists who refer to it as the ”Coolidge effect”. The name comes from a story about former US president Calvin Coolidge and his wife visiting a poultry farm. During the tour, Mrs Coolidge noticed roosters mating frequently and inquired how often that happened. The farmer proudly explained that his roosters performed their duty dozens of times each day.

”Perhaps you could point that out to Mr Coolidge,” replied the first lady.

On being told, the president asked the farmer, ”Does each rooster service the same hen each time?”

”No”, replied the farmer, ”there are many hens for each rooster.”

”Perhaps you could point that out to Mrs Coolidge,” replied the president.

All the evidence suggests the urge is hardwired – yet most men find ways of ignoring that itch, or diverting it into harmless pursuits like looking at pornography.

Harmless pursuits? That’s not, of course, how porn is presented. We are subject to an endless stream of people, mainly women, warning of the dangers of porn. Witness the recent visit to Australia of British sociologist Gail Dines, who appeared on television panels and at writers’ festivals describing in the most salacious terms the horrors of gonzo porn – gagging women, women whose anuses ”literally drop off their bodies because of anal prolapses”. She claimed mainstream porn was invariably vile, body-punishing, brutal, dehumanising and debasing.

Yet the truth is when men sit in the wee hours staring at their flickering computer screens, the big attraction is willing women, eager women, easy women – easy to bed and easy to please. ”Images of women hungry for sex with us, possessed by desire for us. Receptive women who greet our sexual desire not with fear or loathing but with appreciation, even gratitude,” wrote David Steinberg in an essay relating sexual scarcity to the male attraction for porn.

A research study looking at porn usage in Australia, published in The Porn Report, found most (98 per cent) of the best-selling porn videos are pretty white-bread and free of violence – in fact, the most popular mainstream internet sites are now the DIY amateur sites where thoroughly ordinary couples bonk for their webcams. My research suggests men turn to porn for good reasons: as a harmless outlet for their sexual curiosity; to control a sexual drive causing conflict in their relationships; to relieve sexual boredom; and as relief from the tensions of trying to please women in real-life sex.

There are, of course, high-drive women who struggle to live with their own rampaging inner doe. There are many such single women but far fewer in long-term relationships. There are also those who enjoy watching porn, who cheerfully spend Friday nights with their partners munching take-away and watching R-rated DVDs. Women who happily live in open relationships, or go swinging with their partners, or post their own beaver shots on internet sites. And there are women genuinely concerned about their partners’ frustrations. It’s just that these women rarely enter the public debate.

I recently received an email from a 60-year-old woman talking about her ”fabulous, amazing, caring, awesome, loving” husband who keeps harassing her to get involved in threesomes and group sex. She’s an intelligent, thoughtful woman who is perplexed about how to negotiate this difference in their attitudes. ”There is, I believe, a big difference between ‘just saying yes’ within the confines of a marriage, and agreeing to sexual arrangements that simply fly in the face of everything that you believe that sex is about.”

Her husband grew up in a very liberal sexual environment and had previously enjoyed open relationships. He’s convinced his desire for sexual experimentation is perfectly natural, but it holds no attraction for her. After much persuasion, she participated in a threesome with a male friend yet the pressure continues, with her husband seeking further get-togethers with other males and even sending a photo of her (clothed) to a potential partner. Naturally she was upset by this, but rather than rant about his behaviour, she wrote seeking simply to illustrate the difficulties of negotiating this divide between men and women.

I suggested she post the letter on my website forum, to generate discussion on this difficult issue. It attracted an immediate response from an angry woman: ”NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY (not even hubby) has the right to pressure you into doing anything that makes you feel uncomfortable. A person who does this is not respecting OR loving his/her partner,” she wrote, tearing strips off the man for his unseemly behaviour. ”If that was my husband, and he continued to harass me over this, it would be grounds for separation and divorce. Red flags going off all over the place for me,” she added emphatically.

Naturally that served to shut off any real discussion. Few men would dare venture an opinion after such a tirade. That’s what happens all the time. Whenever anyone, man or woman, talks openly about how to accommodate male sexual desire, angry women close down the conversation. It strikes me as odd.

Of course women have a right to say no to such activities but shouldn’t men have freedom to ask? Is it so very different from other areas where women feel perfectly free to try to persuade men into life-changing decisions – like buying a bigger house (involving him in an extra decade or two of mortgage payments) or persuading a new husband, a remarried father, to have more children?

A few months ago, ANU women’s studies students held a demonstration protesting about a talk I was giving at their university. They objected to me even raising questions about sexual obligation in marriage, suggesting such talk is dangerous for young women.

What nonsense. Closing down the debate on the vexed business of accommodating male and female sexual needs doesn’t solve anything. This is mighty tough stuff but it’s a conversation we must continue.

Your blog is a joke, man. Some solid PUA advice but an overall whiny mangina behavior. Keep on white knighting, and come back to read this blog when you’re a cuckold.
The guy believes that it’s ok to marry sluts “if you trust her”. Get the fuck outta here.

I’m having trouble with grasping what a submissive woman would be like, and why it would be attractive. Lots of people are commenting on it, but the definition is kind of diffuse… Can a woman not be very submissive in bed, but still be submissive in a relationship in other ways? I don’t expect anyone to answer this, but I’d be grateful to whoever does.

That’s strange, I never thought of those qualities as “submissive”. They don’t involve losing any power at all to me, they are something I choose to do willingly because I care about the guy I’m with. I can always take it back if he decided to do something shitty. That type of power is given to the man by the woman, I believe, because he inspires her to give it.

I hope culture has a global resurgence of the art of doting, and the art of men giving commands.

I feel a strong social urge to further that aim.

Men have a lot to learn, on this subject. Some men are as resistant to enforcing doting as women are resistant to doting – but once that dynamic is set up, the level of affection increases a great deal.

Yes, the man needs to inspire doting. One way he can do that is by demanding things. Can be simple things like asking the woman to take care of some household duty. It seems a small tip, but this attitude can vastly change the relationship dynamic.

Hmmm.. Not sure how it works with other women, but I would not want the man to force caring behavior out of me, there is really no need for that anyway. Being really dominant is scary and the two people that made me care for them so much haven’t been demanding, just have been their adorable selves. That type of thing can be really disarming, but maybe not to everyone.

You’re correct that it can not come across as forcing. Inspiring subservient doting is a more subtle skill than that, and in the end result should be exactly as you described – the girl will feel as if it was her idea.

Excellent dialogue between Emma and xsplat. Submissiveness is a curse word for one reason only: feminists misunderstood and therefore sought to overturn the source of all feminine power: indirectness, passivity, wiles, manipulation, and subterfuge. Jane Austen is the female equivalent of Sun Tzu, and every bit the genius. Feminists weren’t satisfied with the awesome power of coquettishness. They wanted to strap on armor and play with the boys. THANKS, Simone de Beauvior!

Any woman who cuts against this submissive current diminishes her femininity and her attractiveness. This is a secret weapon — female game, really — that women can deploy to great effect in a world fed on the lies of female aggression. No overbearing, cackling, obnoxious broad will ever be attractive in a primal sense to any man, no matter how many banners her sisters march under or how many beta eunuchs testify how much they appreciate a “strong woman.”

Game theorists like to say women don’t understand the source of their desires; i.e., women think they want beta provider when they impulsively seek alpha. Well, men are similarly ignorant of their own desires too, if not to the same degree as their femme-besotted counterparts. The source of feminine attraction is not 95% physical. Yes, a beautiful appearance is way more of a factor for men appraising women than vice versa. But to subtly lay down submission signals will put even homely girls on a man’s radar.

How to do that? Beats me. Female game will require a female Roisy with similar observational skills. I can guess it begins with what you wear; e.g., exposing the neck as a sign of vulnerability is deeply attractive. The postures of submission work — a woman looking up, a youthful voice, an expression of guileless innocence and childlike trust: women do these things naturally when they want to flirt, despite decades of propaganda reclassifying it as beneath their dignity. Long hair, high maintenance, soft tones. Pert breasts, slinky hips. Wait, where was I?

I feel some of the mistake lies in thinking that you can’t be a strong woman and still do the subservient doting thing. You can be independent in your thinking, resilient, morally strong and self-sufficient and still do this. Strong doesn’t mean dominant and forceful like a man, it’s more of an inner quiality that’s good to have for both genders. In fact, trying to act more like a man to prove you’re strong can be a sign of insecurity, so if a woman wants real strength, she should probably train those four qualities rather than trying to act male.
And being doting/caring/subservient doesn’t make a woman lose her power because she is the one who gives it to the man (he might have inspired it, but she gave it). I think a woman might even gain power that way, because the man likes her even more. I used to be worried that being too nice and caring will provoke a bad reaction in a man (a reaction similar to one women have to betas), but it turned out to not be true.

” I think a woman might even gain power that way, because the man likes her even more.”

I agree with this fully. The more respect the man pays his doting wife/GF the more confidence and therefore power she wields, usually in the form of a firm self assurance and confidence. Also, the more respect the man gives, the more the woman wants to and enjoys the doting, at least in my experience.

Yeah, it’s a matter of semantics. Initially a normal behavior labeled by feminists and ilk within their construct of power struggle as submissive. People don’t realize how much the feminism actually fucked up in conceptual sense, reframing normal behavior as deviant, in one form or another.

lolz,
Sorry we got carried away here. I guess orgasms during rape can happen for many different reasons. I just didn’t think it was the norm to have that because of feelings of being dominated. I still don’t know.

these kinds of sexual b&d or s/m proclivities have been proven to manifest themselves in nordic cultures and girls of viking ancestry and particulary, amongst those with an artistic bent. This is true also of my personal experinces with them.

Don’t let female commenters like Crumpetess make you believe that you won’t be able to swing massive age differences as you get older. Sure, you’re going to have to keep hitting the gym and not smoke or eat junk food or spend your younger days in the sun too much. But your forties and fifties are going to be more fun, if you develop game, than any cougar’s late thirties and forties will be.

I and others have tried to tell her that, at 30, she needs to settle down with a guy in his forties and be relatively quick about it.

The denial and the bizarre negative attitude towards “48 year old men” coupled with her “admiration for Christianity” are part of the reason why I long ago decided that life is too short to spend it in the feminist Christian culture of the US. The thirty and forty something women are giving negative advice to their nieces and daughters who occupy the age range most men of any age want, the most fertile years.

They must not be allowed to continue running the major media outlets.

American “Christianity” needs to be providing good advice to young women and one of the main things is that they should be looking to date/mate with men who are at least 10 years older and from the very start. Since women and manginas run the American churches now, we’re not going to see good advice from them.

See my post below, if you haven’t already. I actually prefer older men. My post to rick was out of irritated flippancy.

Also, your post above has some truth, and some un-truth.

You said, “Since women and manginas run the American churches now, we’re not going to see good advice from them.”

I agree with this assessment, mostly. I spent all of my teens and most of my 20s sitting in church, looking around for a nice strong alpha Christian guy, and being confronted with the most pathetic betas I’ve ever encountered. Everyone who goes to church regularly is well-acquainted with the fact that the single men there are usually hopelessly weak, and there is an overabundance of women. The ratio of men to women in general is about 30-70 in any given church (this certainly has been true in the dozens I’ve attended in different states/countries).

I have my own theories about this…but it’s not a conversation for here.

I’ve never seen King A declare his particular spiritual bent, so I have no idea what his background is…but he is DEFINITELY an exception among Christian males (if indeed, he identifies as Christian). Which is probably why I like what he has to say so much. It’s what I WISH that all those wishy washy, whiny little creepsters I knew in church would do and say.

You also said: American “Christianity needs to be providing good advice to young women and one of the main things is that they should be looking to date/mate with men who are at least 10 years older and from the very start.”

OK, this is where I lose you completely. Mainstream Christianity does NOTHING ELSE but try to drill it into our (women’s) heads that the most important thing in life is to get married as quickly as possible and start popping out kids. There is no emphasis placed on older or younger men…the key thing is to find one, ASAP. I don’t think that there is any bias against older men. What happens is that the young ones get snapped up almost immediately, so there are fewer single Christian men in general, of any age. (of course, neither Christian men or women are being particularly discerning in their choice of mate, since sex outside marriage is strictly verboten, and so everyone is either doing it anyway and stewing in unbearable guilt, or rushing into wedlock foolishly for the sake of their tortured hormones.)

Also, mainstream Christianity is very big on the idea of “man as the head of woman”, in a way that is very consistent with the idea of “alpha” men and “game”. In my experience, this is often abused by the aforementioned weak men, and very few understand what that actually means. (Very few women either, I will concede.)

Again, why I like King A tremendously. He is NOT representative of the average “religious” man. In my experience, he’s an exception to the rule, where he should be the rule itself.If all men thought the way he does, I doubt that anyone would have bothered with a feminist uprising in the first place.

crumpetess (anonymous) wrote: “Since women and manginas run the American churches now, we’re not going to see good advice from them.” I agree with this assessment, mostly.

I disagree, but you are onto something. The greater feminist culture has infected all modern institutions, and churches are no exception. The difference is, churches have a pre-modern justification that insists on recovery once the menstrual storm passes, whereas modern fabrications (like the PUA life dependent on the fleeting sexual revolution) are even less sustainable than the feminism that spawned them.

Churches have become feminized, but that is already on the wane. Your kids will find refuge there as the greater culture violently inters its last hippie, and your grandkids will understand us as the pioneers who kept the faith while the rest of the world lost their pretty little heads. From the time the first Christian drew the first fish in the sand, the true church was, is, and always will be the HQ of the counterculture.

It is tragic that you only found “the most pathetic betas … the single men … hopelessly weak … an overabundance of women … wishy washy, whiny little creepsters….” but not surprising. It is our lot. We were born to endure the last echoes of feminism that took down just about every other institution besides the church. Though the pews were ripped to splinters, the walls still stand. The unmanned betas who sought refuge like women within the church’s certainties are beginning to find pushback from the pulpit rather than confirmation of their “hopelessly weak” proclivities.

I can’t promise you’ll find men at church today. Yet. But one of the reasons is because women like you are no longer there. We prefer to watch the NFL on Sundays because we can smell the faggotry and noxious fishy femme stink still unscrubbed from the marble. I am part of the reconstruction project, despite the odors, because the death throes of feminism aren’t going to be fun, and real men and real women alike will need a place to gather as the sons and daughters of self-annihilating relativism live out the inevitable, savage, Gomorrahite conclusion to their creed.

I have my own theories about this…but it’s not a conversation for here.

Then where? This is one of the few forums where the feminist enforcement of silence does not have sway. Though the ice is thawing at church, habitless Bitch Sisters still maintain an obsolescing intimidation factor to harp all male dissidence into anathema — for now. They need to be criticized, by women.

I don’t bring up churchly things here because I’m trying to evangelize the godless. To them I say, enjoy your “freedom” all the way to The Singularity (or Evolved Transcendence or SexBots or whatever God substitute they choose before mortality claims them). I am here to signal the formerly faithful that, like everywhere else in the culture, the old order is creaking, about to tumble, and could use a good shove. We could use your help, and even your wordless presence helps.

So “women and manginas” don’t run the church. They do, however, successfully import greater-culture bugaboos into the mass because those who would oppose them have abandoned their station. Including you.

All women who post here about how old a man in her life was or is, needs to write the caveat “he said he was” such and such an age.

As I noted above, the number of 17 year old females who claim “the oldest man I slept with was 27” is so high that any intelligent observer will know that these guys mostly weren’t really 27, but possibly a lot older.

Heartiste has written posts about being the age a woman wants you to be.

Men should never answer the question “how old are you” until after learning how old she is and how old she thinks he is and how old she wants the man to be.

Answering otherwise is like walking into machine gun fire. All men know this.

I used to think that lying about age was wrong, and disrespectful to women. I once even lost respect for my friend simply because he suggested to me that since I looked younger than my age (39 at the time) that I should lie about it.

But my attitude changed when it became more necessary to lie. Now I lie, until the woman is emotionally hooked, at which time I can reveal the real age.

I suppose there must be some meta lesson in there somewhere about ethics. But the face value question about lying answers that yes, it’s practical, and both men and women do it.

Then again, the whole architecture of game requires its students to mimic alpha rather than necessarily become alpha. So it makes sense for you two to celebrate dishonesty.

It says something about the importance of a certain subject if a man feels the need to systematically conceal the truth about that subject. If age is just a number, baby, why go through the trouble of dissembling? Which part of “amused mastery” calculates the impact truth has on his female groupies? I’m having trouble imagining how this works. Aloofness means aloofness. She thinks you’re too old or too young? Since when am I supposed to care what her frontbrain thinks?

This is the problem with apprentices who internalize the “game” artificially rather than use its wisdom to reinforce qualities already present. They have no recognition of those true qualities in their essence, only the echoes, and against the field of cultural influences encouraging concealment, the mimics inadvertently advocate non-alpha behavior.

OMG, you’re losing me again. You finally wrote something sensible on the newer thread, implying that it was OK for all men to want to fuck Brittany Spears when she was 16, but now you’re off talking like you’re mentally retarded again.

@Editor: Please don’t constantly put Xsplat and myself in the position of having to lower the IQ level of this forum explaining the obvious.

Your personal details like age and other aspects are NOBODY’s BUSINESS, especially not the business of any female. It’s outrageous that anyone makes a decision to fuck or not based on a number. Men, at least, decide based on a woman’s looks. Women care more about the concept of a number which is unfair.

Young women are very strict about age limits but, at the same time, will not check IDs nor doubt you if you say you are what they want you to be.

If you’re dumb enough to say you’re over 40 you WILL get LJBF’d with most women 16-22, guaranteed. If you are smart enough to say you’re under 40, they WILL accept that and the green lights are on.

Morons who feel they have to be honest WILL GO WITHOUT SEX, at least with the hottest women.

It is BETA to deliberately and willingly put yourself out of the running with a hottie 16-22, especially in Anglo-America where there is a 100% chance of being rejected if you tell them you’re over 40.

Only a mangina will willingly go without sex, knowing that all he had to do was tell a white lie to get it.

Xsplat is completely correct that, once a woman has had sex with you. you can tell the truth.

You seem like you have autism or asperger’s or something. You get lucid sometimes but then you fall back on an Aspie concept of what you THINK is “Christianity”.

This concept isn’t just PUA 101. It is common sense.

You either want to get laid or you don’t. Alpha has nothing to do with honor or honesty or “doing the right thing” or any other “Christian” concept.

And this also has no bearing on any “leader of men” aspects either. No males that you lead need to know stupid personal details about you.

Seriously, you are as aware as anyone that King A has a severe case of Asperger’s Syndrome when it comes to his view that he’s some kind of an intellectual CS Lewis “Christian” and moral crusader who stands above you and your readers.

Aspies always lower the IQ level of a discussion.

In this case, you’ve written about this subject many times. The knee-jerk “OMG you shouldn’t lie to women” is so basic and usual and typical of mangina Americans that you’d save a lot of time boxing this clown around the ears yourself and telling him to smarten up.

Otherwise you’re burdening me and Xsplat and Itsme and n/a etc with the burdensome dirty work of repeating obvious, basic things.

This is like the clowns who kept saying last year “But paying for a lapdance is always beta because it’s like paying for drinks”.

Aspies only THINK they are operating on some kind of higher plane when most people see they are operating on a lower plane.

Save us from doing the dirty work or let your blog degenerate into a low IQ Family Bible Hour. We should all have better things to do than suffer King A’s childish Kindergarten “morality”.

It’s entirely relevant how old this passive aggressive commenter is and what his sex life is or isn’t. The type of guy who goes on the attack like he does, putting on airs about his moral superiority to others on this forum, ALWAYS has an emotional problem related to his own sex life.

And this negativity pushes out good discussion about game. He could have at least read the archives where it’s been discussed ad infinitum how women want a man to be the age her hamster expects him to be. That topic isn’t even worth a debate; even if King A were capable of sticking to the particulars in a debate instead of going on about how superior and condescending he is about the “cult following for this stupid thing called game”.

By the way, I have no problem with men who are real Christians, such as those who would marry a much younger woman. My “axe” is for those who are Feminist Christians, always looking out for the self interest of older females instead of their own interests and the interests of their fellow man.

Not wanting sex with 18 year olds puts you outside the bounds of both alpha and beta.

You’re damned straight I believe that no serious PUA blog editor should put up with your passive aggressive “changeling” opinions (on one thread you’re OK with men looking at teens and on another you’re calling young women “temples that men vandalize”).

Without Xsplat, N/A, ItsMe, Dirk or myself the Editor would have long ago lost his blog to a bunch of holy rollers and white nationalist “males” who weren’t or aren’t the slightest bit interested in getting laid with hotter, younger, tighter women and don’t want any other man over 30 to do that either.

Jerry writes: Your personal details like age and other aspects are NOBODY’s BUSINESS, especially not the business of any female.

Then follows up twenty minutes later with: [Mr.] Editor [Sir], And how about asking King A to finally fess up on his approximate age and sex life, [if it so please you, sir]?

Just to get this straight. Full, minute disclosure of personal details to anonymous hacks with their panties in a bunch online, but lie as a policy to the actual flesh-and-blood women in my life?

You concede the argument when you attempt to diminish my authority rather than my speech. Take words here at their logos, not the speaker’s ethos (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, look it up). We recognize authority on pseudonymous forums by force of argument, not by who the speakers claim they are. If this weren’t so, we would have demanded full disclosure from Roisy long ago (as many haters have). Those who expend their rhetorical energies on “exposing” the “real” writer demonstrate an inability to compete word for word. And perhaps they also show how insecure they are about full revelation regarding themselves.

Deception is feminine. Acceptably feminine. We accept make-up on women as part of “the game” while we see shoe-lifts on men as compensating or pathetic. Same with men using game tips — and here PUAs will agree: if you are still using forced openers and canned shtick a year into your journey up from chumpdom, rather than going with the zen flow of your reclaimed manliness, you are missing the point. The deception PUAs counsel is a means to an end, a band-aid while the rest of you undergoes a thorough “inner game” transformation.

I say “lying = beta” because dishonesty is the short-term jerry-rig solution to long-term transformation. People with little to lie about simply do not depend on it, and in fact, find it foreign. Which is more attractive, a woman who stuffs her bra and fears disrobing or Gwen Stefani brazenly wearing a halter top and making little tits cool?

There is a huge gap between lying and teasing. If you’re lying women into bed, that’s pathetic. You are concealing what you truly are, and that radiates a lack of confidence, whoever you truly are, loser or titan. “I am what I am, take it or leave it” resonates more than “Look at who I’m trying to be.” If you’re teasing them into bed, you are revealing what you truly are as you simultaneously dismiss all judgment (negative or positive) about you. “I’m the guy your Dad warned you never to get involved with.”

If you’re teasing them, they expect it, they want it, they know it’s All In The Game.

Bullshit. Pure honesty goes out the window the moment a man asks for directions to a place he already knows how to get to. Don’t try to merge Family Bible Hour with Game Theory. You’re not good at it.

Since you’re trying to learn here and you’ve been making 180 degree changes in your opinions as you learn, recognize that you’ll be changing your opinion on this soon as well.

First of all you’re lying on this forum by omission. You’re being dishonest here by being the only commenter who refuses to give his or her approximate age. Around here, with all due respect to anonymity itself, everyone gives their general life situation such as gender, approximate stage in life, marital status. You’re long overdue to give a general ballpark description of your life situation including the size and quality of your current harem (or hag) and approximate number of sexual partners. It does make a difference in judging the context of your prose.

And, no, it’s not the same situation here as in a game situation with a woman. It’s dishonest to pretend it is…unless you’re trying to game the readers in order to fuck them, which fits with the antagonistic anti-PUA posts you made when you first commented.

So you’re basically saying that you lie here on this forum (by omission) but, if you were over 40, you would not tell an 18 year old female anything but the exact truth about how old you are at all times (notice how it becomes very important for your credibility to state your own life situation – a 19 year old or even 29 year old male or female can easily say “honesty about age is the best policy” but will not have much credibility with anyone approaching 35).

Oh, I forgot: you wouldn’t bang an 18 year old because it would be immoral to “vandalize such a temple”.

Your credibility is further reduced by your previous statements that it’s horribly wrong for a man over 40 to have sex with an 18 year old in the first place. What better way to express disapproval of such behavior than to advocate “total honesty” on the part of the man about his age. Whose interest is that in?

Now I’ll discuss your case of Asperger’s Syndrome: you’re inability to understand that exceptions exist for rules. You’re intelligent but you can’t yet see where some PUA material contradicts itself or has become outdated:

Until about 2 years ago, the PUA scene was pro-feminist in at least 5 big ways:

1 – Men shouldn’t lie to women (or fib even)
2 – Men shouldn’t date with huge age differences (they should retire at 35)
3 – Men shouldn’t date foreign women (or lower income women)
4 – Men shouldn’t ever pay for sexual satisfaction, even on the margins
5 – If a man fails with a woman, it was his fault.

All of these positions support what older women would prefer men to take and Feminism is a Sexual Trade Union for older women.

Example: The PUA scene only two years ago was where you’d often see commenters and bloggers write “Alphas don’t go overseas to date”.

What 2 year old sites have you been reading? With the above, you’re basically supporting the feminist desire for a world where men can’t lie.

In the past 2 years, we’ve grown up a bit in the manosphere:

Game is not about “being yourself” at all times.Get it through your skull and read the archives because this topic about being in the age ballpark she wants has been settled long ago. There is no way you can win an argument that, for instance, a 60 year old man who looks to a woman like he’s still under 40 (her estimation), would tell a 19 year old he’s much older than she thinks he is when sex is in the cards.

Sure, the recommendation is to avoid directly lying if you can help it. Let her guess your age and tell her she’s a good guesser if that’s all it takes (it’s often not all it takes – their frontbrains need to tell their friends or their parents something about the guy they are about to go on a date with).

And understand that, unless you’re beta, a non-American woman can learn you lied about your age after you’ve had sex and it’s no big deal…certainly not anywhere near the big deal it would be if you unnecessarily showed way too much honesty before sex.

The same principle applies if you’re an Arab man about to have sex with a Jewish Israeli girl who thinks you’re a Jewish Israeli man. In that case, you don’t volunteer the truth before sex either.

This is all common sense buddy. Get with the program and do yourself a favor by recognizing that not all game situations allow for perfect honesty.

Exceptions can prove a rule anyway. I’d agree that “honesty is the best policy” with women as long as exceptional circumstances are taken into account.

Asperger’s Syndrome is defined as getting hung up about a “rule” without being able to take into account the exceptions to the rule.

Napoleon had Asperger’s. He didn’t understand that all his great “rules” for fighting assumed short supply lines. You’re assuming a guy is under 40 and gaming a woman over 20. If the gap widens (the supply lines are lengthened) you’d be like Napoleon with your armchair “advice”.

It’s ironic that your case of Asperger’s Syndrome is clear in that you’ve gotten hung up on some aspects of the “teachings” of the very blog you’ve tried to be so condescending about for the past few months. Like parroting cherry picked parts of the Bible, you’re ignoring the many places where the host advocates anything but pure honesty.

You somehow didn’t see the many posts dealing with this particular issue and which never condone the idea of shocking a young woman with an “honest confession” about a much wider age difference than she assumed by looking at you.

Heck, like I noted above, pure honesty goes out the window the moment a man, justifiably, asks a woman for directions to a place he already knows how to get to.

Don’t try to merge Family Bible Hour with game. Those brought up on the former’s beta principles are doomed to many sexless years before they grow up and enter the real world.

Hey, Jerry: when a person is not who you presume he is nor holds the opinions you projected him to have, that’s not proof of his inconsistency. The battles you wage inside your head are not evidence that someone is evolving in (or away from) your direction, nor does it mean he is “still learning.” It means you are a presumptuous blowhard living an interior fantasy.

You keep fantasizing about who I am, and you keep waging your quixotic war with straw. The fuck I’m going to fill out your questionnaire. I’m laughing at your desperate curiosity about another dude.

Christianity is about humility, not your brand of haughty arrogance and enmity. I don’t see you as a real Christian.

You also come across as someone with a physical or emotional deformity that keeps him from actually going out and practicing game, past, present and future. You’ve clearly got something to hide that has nothing to do with being anonymous. Nobody, not even Ritmo, ever so steadfastly refused to state what his or her current dating situation was if asked.

When you first came here, you condemned game and this blog quite harshly. You’ve been learning game theory well, but you can’t, of course, provide examples of anything that happened in your own life.

It’s good you’ve changed your public tune on men desiring sex with women in their late teens (you and I both know you still condemn the idea of older men actually getting such sex but you want to fool the crowd into thinking you’ve finally decided to be cool on the subject).

In any case, when you stuck up for Xsplat, you won respect, at least as a chameleon.

On taking up the pro-feminist meme that women must never be lied to at all and under no game circumstances:

Did the Highlander in the film of that name tell women in each new century that he lived that he was 400 years old?

Did the Vampire Lestat tell everyone he was 400 years old?

If you’ve read the Picture of Dorian Gray, wasn’t it the right thing to do when he avoided death by claiming to a killer looking for him that he couldn’t be 40 because he looked like, and therefore was, still 22?

This is all common sense. They put young looking cops into high schools to find drug dealers and these cops have to lie about their age and get into sexual relationships with 18 year old students to keep their cover.

Is that fair to all the guys their own age who are honest?

Should they get jobs as undercover high school cops so they will be given permission by some higher authority to lie too?

Is dying one’s gray hair a natural color to look younger similar to wearing elevator shoes in terms of social opprobrium? No because it’s not really hiding a genetic “defect”.

It’s not alpha to offer too much information. You don’t owe a budding romance the details on your driver’s license upfront.

Thinking that women should never be lied to at all is one of the biggest pro-feminist, pro-chivalry pieces of nonsense around. Just avoid talking that kind of absolutist crap and everything will be fine.

Stay away from absolutism on this forum.

Truth as a rule is great, but remember that all rules have exceptions.

Why not just evade the age conversation altogether, thus avoiding the “to lie or not to lie” dilemma, while also building a feeling of mystery within her (hamster). After all, if it really doesn’t matter how old you are, or what my frontbrain thinks, you treat it as such, no?

I’d be much more turned on if my age questions were evaded, and if I were “convinced” (through masculine persuasion, not debate) that my concerns about age difference don’t really matter… rather than find out later I was actually lied to. You’re more likely to keep a girl that way, at least the good (imho) ones who respond to negs like this.

I’m in the field fielding such questions several times a day. The archives of this blog deal with this subject well. It’s not really a dilemma. I’d advise any man not to take a female’s advice on the issue, with all due respect.😉

Anglo American women have spread this fear of “being caught in a lie” to make men “behave.” Most anglo American men are easily controlled by fear of how women will react to something. When my gfs found my driver’s license 3 to 6 months into a relationship, my standard answer was “Yes, funny, now go fix me dinner”. I’m not opposed to evasion maneuvers but they smack of caring too much and my experience is that smart women don’t like being “evaded to”. The hamster prefers to be lied to. I meet hamsters every day, several times per day.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that this is something that truly happened to her and she is struggling to understand it and work through it? lolz is not a man, making up stories. I get that you can’t wrap your head around this. You had a horrible experience. But yours is not the only experience and different women will deal with it in different ways. This was hers. Bottom line. It is time to let it go.

The upside of dating a great looking 30 year old woman is that she would have proven that her genetic telomeres are long, meaning she’d produce a better daughter than most of the hotties aged 16-22 who lose their looks by 23.

I wouldn’t mind if the mainstream American media started to promote the genes of all those with proven looks durability, female or male. I don’t feel right seeing posts that condemn the fertility of women your age and I’m obviously shocked at the vicious propaganda about older men’s sperm being supposedly defective (doctors have told me that men over 45 produce smarter babies on average – presumably the men have to be smart to game younger women into having babies with them).😉

Looks durability is a prime trait men should want their daughters to have so the eggs of a hot 30 year old would be better to fertilize than the eggs of a woman who hasn’t proven that her good looks can last more than a year or two. You will want to market this to potential husbands because you will have proven that you held on to your looks when approximately 90% of women your age lost theirs long ago.

A politically incorrect media would praise you for that (specifically remind men that younger women’s looks are too volatile in a mostly downward direction, for their eggs to warrant fertilization).

My biggest dating problem is that, by earning an exception to a young woman’s “10 years older limit” plus looking sometimes twenty years younger than I am (I kept my face out of the sun), I’ll succeed in dating a young 9 or 10 but, within weeks or months, her figure will transform itself so she’s a 6 or 7. The highest rate of downhill transformations occurs in the 16-22 age range. Just yesterday I was at a birthday party where a teenager who had a crush on me showed up 30 pounds heavier than she was just two months ago and with Herpes blisters all over her lips. Older women don’t surprise men with such transformations over so short a time period.

Being apart for more than a month from a woman in that age range and then seeing her again is often like observing the opposite of what happens when a caterpillar puts itself into a cocoon and metamorphizes into a butterfly. I find myself LJBFing 18 year olds by saying “you’re really too young for me” when what I’m really thinking is “Damn, what happened to you?”

Over a summer of sun tanning on the beach, I’ve seen several gorgeous young women turn into leather faced zombies.

This is one reason why I can’t relate to the way some of the religious guys pedestalize the youngest women for having “bodies like temples that men shouldn’t vandalize”. WTF? They vandalize themselves! Cigarettes quickly transform beauties into hags. I’ve seen this first hand hundreds of times.

There’s possibly way too much volatility in dating the youngest women. The awards are high but likely only temporary. Evolution has produced a large number of women who blossom and fade way too early for today’s society.

Instead of telling men that they can’t get a really young woman in the first place, or that an “old man” supposedly can’t keep a young woman satisfied, the best politically incorrect message would be “but she hasn’t proven she can make it past her 21st birthday and still compete with the few great looking 30 year olds like me”.

That, believe me, is a convincing argument.

You know the old saying “Be careful of what you wish for because you might get it”.

Any man who wishes for a 16 year old “10” may get his wish and find himself shackled, soon after, to an 18 year old whale.

Jerry, the best way to asses the potential for keeping looks is to peruse family albums of the target lady, going a few generations back. Also how her mother looks will tell if there is a predisposition for staying fresh for longer time. It’s not proof 100%, but it’s a good rule of thumb.

You don’t need to wait till she hits 30 to gauge her fading prospects.

As it happens, the two main LTRs I’ve had have been with older men (albeit in the 7-10 year range) and I vastly prefer that level of maturity..

Speaking of maturity (or in my case, immaturity), I snapped at rickb223 because he pissed me off and in general comes across as an extremely unpleasant person…and I don’t like extremely unpleasant people of any age. However, my “Gramps” comment to him was not reflective of my actual beliefs.

So again, I actually don’t rule out older men at all. I recently had an attractive 55-year-old guy express interest in me, and was quite tempted (I’ve been briefly involved with two men who were in their 50s in the past), but decided against it in the end. Mainly because I think the chances of a man in his 50s dying within the next 20 years and leaving me a young widow (and/or mother) just aren’t that appealing. It more about statistics than about tastes.

So…I tend to agree…someone in his 40s would be just about perfect. I’ve been tending to gravitate towards the 37-42 range of late…even 33 or 34-year-old guys just seem a bit young and shifty to me. I’m wary of them.

I responded to lolz, but it seems the comment got lost somewhere. Nothing very offensive was in it, so I assume it didn’t get deleted on purpose.
So I understand it was a rape after all. Sorry, it’s just that when you said it was pleasurable and not violating, it sounded as if you were ok with it. But now I see you say it was traumatizing. In that case, the way I understand it, your experience and Maya’s are not so different after all. In your case it wasn’t an involuntary orgasm though, but an involuntary emotional reaction. It’s just natural functions (like orgasm or pleasure from being dominated) being taken over by someone you didn’t give the permission to do it. It sounds like it could be humiliating, but it’s nothing to be ashamed of if you really think about it. Nobody should ever make you ashamed unless you willingly did something bad. Saying this might not help you, but I wish you and Maya well and this is a very strong principle of mine.